Case: 12-11807 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11807
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:01-cr-00423-PCH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KARL BERNARD BELL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 18, 2012)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Karl Bell, a federal prisoner serving two concurrent life sentences for
distributing crack cocaine, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his
Case: 12-11807 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 2 of 5
“Motion for Clarification” and denial of his later motion for reconsideration of that
dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). 1
I.
Bell filed a “Motion for Clarification” in the district court on April 21, 2011
asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose two concurrent life sentences
because the government did not file proper notice that it was seeking such a
sentence. The district court denied that motion, and Bell appealed. This Court
held that Bell’s “Motion for Clarification” should be treated as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion because it sought a modification of his sentence. United States v. Bell, 447
F. App’x. 116, 118 (11th Cir. 2011). Because Bell had already filed one § 2255
motion and did not have court authorization to file a second one, we held that the
district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the “Motion for Clarification”
and should have dismissed it. Id.
From there, the case’s procedural history is complicated. On November 18,
2011, this Court issued its decision vacating the district court’s denial of the
1
Because Bell is proceeding pro se we construe his brief liberally. See Harris v. United Auto.
Ins. Group, Inc., 579 F.3d 1227, 1232 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009). Although Bell mentioned only the
denial of his motion for reconsideration in his notice of appeal, it appears that he intended to
appeal the dismissal of his “Motion for Clarification” as well. In his brief to this Court, he
argues that the district court incorrectly dismissed his “Motion for Clarification.” Because the
notice of appeal was timely as to both the denial of his motion for reconsideration and the
dismissal of his “Motion for Clarification,” we may consider both rulings. See Wainwright v.
Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 537 F.3d 1282, 1284–85 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n appeal is not lost if a
mistake is made in designating the judgment appealed from where it is clear that the overriding
intent was effectively to appeal.”).
2
Case: 12-11807 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 3 of 5
“Motion for Clarification” and remanding to the district court with instructions to
dismiss that motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Following its
instructions but failing to wait for the mandate to issue, the district court dismissed
the “Motion for Clarification” on November 22. Bell immediately appealed that
dismissal.
While that second appeal was pending, the mandate from the first appeal
issued on January 10, 2012, and the district court dismissed the “Motion for
Clarification” for the second time on February 6, 2012. Bell filed a motion for
reconsideration of that February 6 dismissal. That motion was denied and Bell
filed a notice of appeal of that denial. That is the appeal currently before this
Court.
On May 21, 2012 this Court issued a decision on the appeal of the
November 22, 2011 dismissal of the motion (the first dismissal). We held that the
first dismissal was entered when the district court lacked jurisdiction because it
was entered before the mandate issued. Bell v. United States, 470 F. App’x. 858,
858 (11th Cir. 2012). As a result, we vacated the November 22, 2011 dismissal
and remanded the case to the district court, instructing it to reenter its dismissal of
the “Motion for Clarification” if its “view of the matter had not changed in the
interim.” Id. We did not address the February 6, 2012 dismissal of the “Motion
for Clarification” (the second dismissal). The mandate issued on June 20, 2012.
3
Case: 12-11807 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 4 of 5
On July 17, 2012, Bell filed a “Motion for Consideration” essentially
reiterating the arguments he made in his April 21 “Motion for Clarification” and
asking the district court to take the opportunity given to it by this Court to change
its mind and not dismiss the “Motion for Clarification.” On July 24, 2012, the
district court dismissed both the April 21, 2011 “Motion for Clarification” and the
July 17, 2012 “Motion for Consideration.” Bell entered a notice of appeal of those
dismissals on August 13, 2012. That appeal is not currently before us for decision
because it has not yet been docketed and briefed.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s application of the law of the case
doctrine. Thomas v. United States, 572 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009). We
review the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for an abuse of discretion. Lawson v.
Singletary, 85 F.3d 502, 507 (11th Cir. 1996).
Bell’s appeal of the district court’s original denial of his “Motion for
Clarification,” divested the district court of jurisdiction over the matter. Green
Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. 341 F.3d 1292, 1209 (11th Cir.
2003). Jurisdiction had not returned to the district court when it dismissed the
“Motion for Clarification” on November 22, 2011; therefore, the appeal of that
dismissal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction. Bell’s appeal of the
November 22, 2011 dismissal could not have divested the district court of
4
Case: 12-11807 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 5 of 5
jurisdiction it did not otherwise have at the time. The district court regained
jurisdiction over the matter when the mandate issued on January 10, 2012. And
the mandate instructed the district court to dismiss the “Motion for Clarification,”
which it did on February 6, 2012.
In entering the February 6, 2012 dismissal, the district court was following
our January 10, 2012 mandate to dismiss the motion. Under the law of the case
doctrine and the mandate rule, the district court’s dismissal was proper. Norelus v.
Denny’s, Inc., 628 F.3d 1270, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The mandate rule is a
specific application of the ‘law of the case’ doctrine requiring that a trial court,
upon receiving the mandate of an appellate court, may not alter, amend, or
examine the mandate, or give any further relief or review, but must enter an order
in strict compliance with the mandate.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted). The denial of the motion to reconsider that dismissal was also proper
because the district court’s following of our mandate was not a manifest error of
law and Bell has not presented any newly discovered evidence. See Jacobs v.
Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he only
grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest
errors of law or fact.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
AFFIRMED.
5