Karl Bernard Bell v. USA, (11th Cir. 2006)

Text

---

[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED

U .S . COURT OF APPEALS

E L E V E N T H CIRCUIT

S e p t e m b e r 18, 2006

N o . 05-13413 T H O M A S K. KAHN

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar CLERK

D . C. Docket Nos.

04-20876-CV-PCH

0 1 -0 0 4 2 3 -C R -P C H

K A R L BERNARD BELL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Southern District of Florida

(S ep tem b er 18, 2006)

B efo re TJOFLAT, BIRCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

K arl Bernard Bell, a federal prisoner serving a life sentence for distribution o f 50 or more grams of crack cocaine, filed a motion to vacate his sentence p u rs u an t to 28U.S.C. § 2255. Bell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's o r d e r denying as moot his motion for discovery, which he filed after the district co u rt denied his § 2255 motion. After review, we affirm.1 B ell's counseled § 2255 motion raised numerous ineffective assistance of co u n sel claims. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge reco m m en d ed denying Bell's § 2255 motion on the merits. Over Bell's objections, th e district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and d en ied Bell's § 2255 motion on March 31, 2005.

O n April 8, 2005, Bell deposited in the prison mail a pro se motion for reco n sid eratio n . On May 2, 2005, the district court denied reconsideration, noting th at Bell had merely reiterated claims raised in his § 2255 motion. On April 21, 2 0 0 5 , while Bell's motion for reconsideration was pending, Bell deposited in the p riso n mail a pro se motion for discovery. Bell's discovery motion alleged that the g o v ern m en t had failed to turn over exculpatory documents relating to a co n fid en tial informant's history as a drug dealer, in violation of Brady v. M arylan d , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). Although Bell argued that this B rad y material supported his contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failin g to investigate his case, he also admitted that he was not certain the req u ested Brady material existed.

B ell's discovery motion was stamped filed on May 5, 2005. On May 6, 2 0 0 6 , the district court denied the discovery motion as moot, noting that the case h ad been closed in light of the district court's March 31 order denying Bell's § 2 2 5 5 motion and its May 2 order denying his motion for reconsideration. Bell filed this appeal.

T h e district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied as moot Bell's d is co v e ry motion. Under the mailbox rule, Bell's discovery motion was deemed filed on April 21, 2005, when Bell placed it in the prison mail. See Adams v. U n ited States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 1999). By that date, however, the d istrict court already had denied Bell's § 2255 motion on the merits. Although B ell's motion for reconsideration remained pending, the district court's intervening d ecisio n to deny reconsideration rendered his discovery motion moot. See De La T eja v. United States, 321 F.3d 1357, 1362 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a case is moot "when it no longer presents a live controversy").

A F F IR M E D .

1 We review for abuse of discretion a district court's denial of a request for discovery. Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir.), modified in part by, Arthur v. Allen, No. 0314304 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2006).

---