are not properly before the court and generally need not be addressed.” United States v. Castillo-Garcia, 117 F.3d 1179, 1197 (10th Cir.1997). See also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Greif 906 F.Supp. 1446, 1456-57 (D.Kan. 1995) (noting a motion to reconsider is not a mechanism to raise arguments that should have been raised in the first instance or to rehash arguments previously considered and rejected by the court). 2. Analysis Although plaintiff suggests that the court made numerous errors in its May 8, 2002, M & O, the vast majority of plaintiffs arguments are merely a recitation of her previous positions. At best, these contentions reshuffle plaintiffs arguments previously considered and rejected by the court. See Voelkel v. General Motors, Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1482, 1483 (D.Kan.1994) (<HOLDING>). As such, the court declines to revisit
holding that merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the bia does not constitute specifying errors of fact or law as required for a successful motion to reconsider alteration omitted holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider when the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected holding that a motion to reconsider is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case to rehash arguments or to dress up arguments that previously failed