US v. Todd Bell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00219-RDB-3,1:12-cv-03042-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999723422]. Mailed to: Todd Bell FCI CUMBERLAND FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1000 Cumberland, MD 21501-0000. [15-7242]

Appeal: 15-7242

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7242

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TODD BELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00219-RDB-2; 1:12-cv-03042-RDB)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd Bell, Appellant Pro Se.
Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7242

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Todd

Bell

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion

and

denying

his

motion

for

judicial

review

in

the

interest of justice, which was construed by the court as an
unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

The orders are
judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling

is

debatable,

and

that

the

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
at 484-85.

2

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

Appeal: 15-7242

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Bell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally,

we

construe

Bell’s

notice

of

appeal

and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion.
(4th Cir. 2003).

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
In order to obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
these

criteria.

Bell’s claims do not satisfy either of

Therefore,

we

deny

authorization

to

file

a

successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3