United States District Court, D. Connecticut
VANESSA L. BRYANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Crispin Abarientos's Motion for
Reconsideration [Dkt. 28] of the Court's October 7, 2019
Order [Dkt. 22] denying Defendant's Motion to Continue
Sentencing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 28].
stands before the Court having plead guilty to Health Care
Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. [Dkt 17 (Order
Adopting Finding and Recommd. of Magistrate Judge
Richardson)]. Defendant previously sought a 90 day
continuance to evaluate assets and negotiate a resolution of
civil penalties under the False Claims Act arising from
Defendant's conduct. [Dkt. 21 (Def. Mot. to Cont.
Sentencing)]. Defendant asserted that “[t]he process in
this case is complex in that there are stock/bonds,
retirement programs and real estate that needs to be
evaluated and liquidated and tax consequences need to be
determined.” Id. at ¶ 5. The Court noted,
however, that the Net Worth Statement certified by Defendant
for the Pre-Sentence Investigation did not show ownership of
securities, retirement accounts, or significant real estate.
[Dkt. 22 (Order Denying Def. Mot. for Cont. of Sentencing)].
the Defendant sought additional time to consult a forensic
psychologist and forensic psychiatrist, but sufficient time
remained to consult with these professionals. [Dkt. 21 (Def.
Mot. for Cont. of Sentencing) ¶ 6]. Moreover,
Defendant's motion did not explain why a 90 day
continuance was necessary to secure their opinions,
considering Defendant waived his right to plead a jury
indictment and petitioned to enter a guilty plea four months
reconsideration, Defendant filed a sealed Amended Net Worth
Statement [Dkt. 30 (10/14/2019, Decl. of Def. Net Worth &
Cash Flow Statements)], showing, inter alia, over
four million dollars in retirement and investment accounts
omitted from Defendant's July 24, 2019 Net Worth
Statement previously submitted to the U.S. Probation Officer
[Dkt. 19-1 (Pre-Sentencing Report, Draft) Ex. 1].
explains that the updated statement was necessary because
“it has been confusing for the defendant and his spouse
to obtain various bank and investment paperwork and to figure
out the specific items to list.” [Dkt. 28 (Def. Mot.
for Reconsideration) ¶ 6)]. In addition to counsel,
Defendant is aided by an accountant in the valuation of these
assets. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.
represents that it appears that all parties are desirous of a
united resolution of the criminal and civil liability.
Id. at ¶ 6. Defendant also argues that
resolving the civil penalties shows that Defendant fully
cooperated federal agencies in reaching a resolution.
Id. at ¶11. Lastly, Defendant states that he is
still working to obtain documentation regarding his mental
health issues. Id. at ¶ 12.
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is untimely. Local
Rule 7(c) requires that motions for reconsideration be filed
within seven days of the filing of the decision or order from
which such relief is sought. Here, Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration was filed eleven days after the Court's
October 7, 2019 Order denying the Defendant's requested
motion is also meritless. The standard for reconsideration,
as set forth in Local Rule 7(c), states that:
“[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be routinely
filed and shall satisfy the strict standard applicable to
such motions. Such motions will generally be denied unless
the movant can point to controlling decisions or data that
the court overlooked in the initial decision or order.”
See also Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,
257 (2d Cir. 1995) (… “reconsideration will
generally be denied unless the moving party can point to
controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the
does not point to a controlling decision or data overlooked
by the Court. There is no suggestion, much less
demonstration, that the new information offered in support of
Defendant's motion for reconsideration could not have
been submitted in the first instance.
sentencing court has broad discretion respecting the
scheduling of sentencing proceedings. Absent a showing both
that the denial (of a requested continuance of sentencing)
was arbitrary and that it substantially impaired the
defendant's opportunity to secure a fair
sentence…” a sentence will not be vacated on
appeal. U.S. v. Yuzary, 17 Fed.Appx. 43, 46 (2d Cir.
2001)(citing U.S. v. Booth, 996 F.2d 1395, 1397-98
(2d. Cir. 1993).
this additional financial information was available, delaying
sentencing to accommodate the convenience of the parties in
related civil litigation is unwarranted. Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(b) requires that the Court impose sentence without
unnecessary delay. Neither the Defendant's original
motion for a continuance, nor the motion for reconsideration,
explain why Defendant cannot manage the ...