Legal Opinion

United States v. Karl Bernard Bell

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided November 18, 2011No. 11-12074UnpublishedCited by 4 opinions

Non-Argument Calendar.

1Per curiam

Karl Bernard Bell appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his “Motion for Clarification” of whether the court had jurisdiction to impose his mandatory terms of life imprisonment. Because Bell’s motion was actually a successive habeas petition filed without our authorization, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on it.

I

Bell was convicted in 2001 of two counts of distribution of crack cocaine. Before the trial, the government had filed a notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 851 based on Bell’s prior drug-related felony convictions. The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. J.B. Farris v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003
  2. United States v. Edison JordanCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
  3. United States v. Gary William HoltCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
  4. United States v. Hector Ramon Diaz-ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
  5. United States v. Richard Allen StosselCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. David ScruggsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2012
  2. Karl Bernard Bell v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012
  3. United States v. Karl Bernard BellCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012
  4. United States v. David ScruggsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API