The standard for a Rule 59(e) motion is “strict” and exists in order to dissuade parties from re-litigating issues that have already been fully considered by the Court. Id. at 257; Lee v. Ashcroft, No. 01-CV-0997 (SJ), 2003 WL 21310247 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2003). As to his second, third, and fourth claims, Concepcion presents no new matters that the Court overlooked in denying these’claims on their merits. Therefore, the Court denies these claims because Concepcion “seeks solely to re-litigate an issue already decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. Moreover, the Court notes that, after Concepcion’s habeas petition was denied, the Second Circuit has held that Ap-prendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Coleman v. United States, 329 F.3d 77, 79 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>), cert denied, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 840, 157
holding that blakely does not apply retroactively to  2255 motions holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively to claims raised in a  2255 motion holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively to initial section 2255 motions for habeas relief