US v. Todd Bell, No. 15-7242 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7242 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TODD BELL, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
