[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 18, 2006
No. 05-13413 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos.
04-20876-CV-PCH
01-00423-CR-PCH
KARL BERNARD BELL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 18, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Karl Bernard Bell, a federal prisoner serving a life sentence for distribution
of 50 or more grams of crack cocaine, filed a motion to vacate his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Bell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
order denying as moot his motion for discovery, which he filed after the district
court denied his § 2255 motion. After review, we affirm.1
Bell’s counseled § 2255 motion raised numerous ineffective assistance of
counsel claims. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge
recommended denying Bell’s § 2255 motion on the merits. Over Bell’s objections,
the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and
denied Bell’s § 2255 motion on March 31, 2005.
On April 8, 2005, Bell deposited in the prison mail a pro se motion for
reconsideration. On May 2, 2005, the district court denied reconsideration, noting
that Bell had merely reiterated claims raised in his § 2255 motion. On April 21,
2005, while Bell’s motion for reconsideration was pending, Bell deposited in the
prison mail a pro se motion for discovery. Bell’s discovery motion alleged that the
government had failed to turn over exculpatory documents relating to a
confidential informant’s history as a drug dealer, in violation of Brady v.
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. 03-
14304 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2006).
2
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). Although Bell argued that this
Brady material supported his contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to investigate his case, he also admitted that he was not certain the
requested Brady material existed.
Bell’s discovery motion was stamped filed on May 5, 2005. On May 6,
2006, the district court denied the discovery motion as moot, noting that the case
had been closed in light of the district court’s March 31 order denying Bell’s §
2255 motion and its May 2 order denying his motion for reconsideration. Bell
filed this appeal.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied as moot Bell’s
discovery 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.
United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 1999). By that date, however, the
district court already had denied Bell’s § 2255 motion on the merits. Although
Bell’s motion for reconsideration remained pending, the district court’s intervening
decision to deny reconsideration rendered his discovery motion moot. See De La
Teja 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”).
AFFIRMED.
3