SUE ROBINSON, District Judge.
At Wilmington this 20th day of June, 2013, having reviewed the above captioned case;
IT IS ORDERED that movant Richard Reid's ("movant") Rule 60(b) motion asking the court to "revisit" its denial of his § 2255 motion (D.I. 97) is DENIED, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Following a two-day bench trial in May 2007, movant was convicted on counts I-XI of the Superseding Indictment. (D.I. 57) On September 4, 2007, the court sentenced him to a total of 300 months imprisonment. (D. I. 63) The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed movant's conviction on October 30, 2008. (D.I. 73)
2. Movant filed a timely motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (D.I. 74), and then filed an amended § 2255 motion (D.I. 80). The government filed an answer in opposition. (D.I. 83)
3. The court denied movant's § 2255 motion in a memorandum opinion and order dated June 28, 2012. (D. I. 94; D. I. 95) Movant filed a notice of appeal from that decision on July 11, 2012. (D.I. 96)
4. Movant filed the instant Rule 60(b) motion on September 17, 2012. (D.I. 97) It appears that movant simultaneously filed in the Third Circuit a motion to stay his appeal. See United States v. Reid, No. 12-2973, Order (3d Cir. Oct. 4, 2012). The Third Circuit construed the motion to stay as a motion for an extension of time to file an application for a certificate of appealability, and granted the extension of time. Id.
5. The government filed a response in opposition to movant's Rule 60(b) motion, alleging that the court should deny it as a second or successive § 2255 motion. (D.I. 100)
6. Standard of Review. A motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) "allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). Rule 60(b) provides that a party may file a motion for relief from a final judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence by which due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
7. Rule 60(b) motions are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, consistent with accepted legal principles applied in light of all relevant circumstances. Pierce Assoc. Inc. v. Nemours Found., 865 F.2d 530, 548 (3d Cir. 1988). A court may grant a Rule 60(b) motion only in extraordinary circumstances, and a Rule 60(b) motion is not appropriate to reargue issues that the court has already considered and decided. Brambles USA Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990).
8. Additionally, when, as here, a district court is presented with a motion for reconsideration after it has denied a movant's § 2255 motion, the court must first determine if the motion constitutes a second or successive application under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"). As articulated by the Third Circuit,
in those instances in which the factual predicate of a petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion attacks the manner in which the earlier habeas judgment was procured and not the underlying conviction, the Rule 60(b) motion may be adjudicated on the merits. However, when the Rule 60(b) motion seeks to collaterally attack the petitioner's ...