...this would have fit quite nicely. However, all questions pertaining to this text seem to have devolved into some kind of fill-in-the-blanks contest where the source is being treated as something you're required to look at but are allowed to forget about five minutes later. Just because a Tatsache isn't new doesn't make it redundant; citing it may be, but that wasn't asked. The following is closer to the source than anything on offer: "A motion for reconsideration is appropriate in instances when the court 'has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension,' and a court 'must not grant reconsideration when the motion is simply a re-styling or rehashing of issues previously presented.' Pahler v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 207 F.Supp. 2d 341, 355 (M.D. Pa. 2001)"
https://casetext.com/case/ryan-v-us-4As an aside, jccantrell, did you see L-man's comment on your Q:
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/german-to-english/automotive-cars...The glossary post contains a typo.
Best wishes and have a great day