{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Arizona LLC Law","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.keytlaw.com\/azllclaw","author_name":"Richard Keyt","author_url":"https:\/\/www.keytlaw.com\/azllclaw\/author\/1llclawyer\/","title":"U.S. vs. Michael David Wilhite","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pSv0J0hACZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.keytlaw.com\/azllclaw\/us-vs-wilhite\/\">U.S. vs. Michael David Wilhite<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.keytlaw.com\/azllclaw\/us-vs-wilhite\/embed\/#?secret=pSv0J0hACZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;U.S. vs. Michael David Wilhite&#8221; &#8212; Arizona LLC Law\" data-secret=\"pSv0J0hACZ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/www.keytlaw.com\/azllclaw\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL DAVID WILHITE, Defendant. Criminal Case No. 00-cr-00504-CMA.United States District Court, D. Colorado. November 17, 2017. Darla Dee Wilhite, Interested Party, represented by Scott Joseph Mikulecky, Sherman &amp; Howard, L.L.C.. Yahab Foundation, Interested Party, represented by Scott Joseph Mikulecky, Sherman &amp; Howard, L.L.C.. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT&#8217;S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT&#8217;S MOTION TO STAY CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Michael David Wilhite&#8217;s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. # 160), wherein he requests that this Court reconsider its October 13, 2017, Order addressing Mr. Wilhite&#8217;s ownership interest in AFC and the assets of the Yahab Foundation and permitting garnishment of that interest. (Doc. # 159.) For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion. This denial renders moot the Mr. Wilhite&#8217;s Motion to Stay (Doc. # 161). I. LAW Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is committed to the Court&#8217;s sound discretion. Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988); see United States v. Johnson, 12 F.3d 1540, 1544 (10th Cir.1993) (a court should generally adhere to its own prior rulings, but this rule guides the court&#8217;s discretion; it does not limit its power). &#8220;Relief under Rule 59(e) should only be granted due to an intervening change in the controlling law, new evidence previously unavailable, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.&#8221; Figueroa v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 517 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1270 (D. Colo. 2006) (citing Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). Because the conditions that justify granting a motion to reconsider are rarely present, such motions are disfavored and should be [...]"}