United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HARRIS TOLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Robert Lynn Bell's February 11,
2019 Request for Reduction of Sentence, which was
referred to the United States Magistrate Judge under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). Crim. Doc. 75; Crim. Doc. 77. As
detailed here, the motion should be DENIED.
November 18, 1993, Bell pled guilty to carjacking and, on
February 24, 1994, was sentenced to 240 months'
imprisonment “to be served consecutive to any other
[previously imposed] sentence.” Crim. Doc. 78-2
(Maloney, J.) (Amended Judgment); Crim. Doc. 75 at
1. Online research confirms that on January 24, 1994, Bell
received concurrent state sentences of 50 years for
aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery with a deadly
weapon, and aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon,
which were temporally related to the instant carjacking
offense. Crim. Doc. 75 at 1; see State v. Bell, Nos.
F93-03098, F93-40678, F93-40679 (Crim. Dist. Court No. 4 Jan.
direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the 240-month consecutive sentence and
upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3. United
States v. Bell, 85 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1996) (unpublished
per curiam). Bell unsuccessfully sought relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Bell v. United States, No.
3:97-CV-3019-T, (N.D. Tex. 1998) (summarily dismissing with
prejudice Section 2255 motion); Bell v. United
States, No. 3:16-CV-01624-G (N.D. Tex. 2016)
(transferring successive Section 2255 motion).
motion sub judice, Bell pleads for leniency, seeking
a sentence reduction and/or release under an order of
supervision. Crim. Doc. 75 at 1-2. He avers that he has been
confined for 26 years and that, consequently, is changed and
has turned his life around. He states:
That you bless me by giving me “‘time served'
or credit back as concurrent 12 ½ years of the near 23
years served in state prison.” This will allow me a
second chance. I would serve aproximately [sic] 2 more years
in Federal Custody and then continue serving my state
sentence by going on parole under supervision for
aproximately [sic] 24 more years.
I believe that by granting my state time that I have served
to be concurrent, will not depreciate the seriousness of my
offenses, nor question whether my sentence was sufficient. I
believe that the fact that I was granted parole shows that I
have truly learned, grown, and changed, and that I would
never reoffend while, at the same time, being paroled on
supervision carries some checks and balances that remind me,
and the public, that my offenses are serious and are not
being minimized by me, or the judicial system. Also, I am
aware that I have to register as a sex offender, which is
also another reminder and deterrent if the public or the
judicial system would rely on.
Crim. Doc. 75 at 2.
entreaty notwithstanding, the Court lacks discretion to
modify his sentence, except as permitted by law. Bell has
wholly failed to cite any legal authority permitting the
Court to modify his sentence to either grant credit for time
served or impose a concurrent sentence, and the Court has
found none. See United States v. Olivares,
713 Fed.Appx. 353, 353 (5th Cir. 2018) (concluding pro
se post-judgment motion for concurrent sentences
“was an unauthorized motion that the district court
lacked jurisdiction to consider” (citing United
States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994)).
Bell's motion was not filed by the Government or made
within 14 days of sentencing, it cannot be construed as a
request for Rule 35 sentence correction or reduction.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35; Early, 27 F.3d at
141. Likewise, the relief sought is not authorized by 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), since the request is not premised
on an amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
See Early, 27 F.3d at 142. Additionally,
Bell does not allege purported sentencing errors and, as
such, the Court does not construe his claim to arise under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. See Tolliver v. Dobre,
211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). This Court also lacks
jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the way Bell's
sentence is being executed since he is incarcerated in
Texarkana, Texas, which is within the Eastern District of
Texas. See Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370,
373-74 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that court lacked
jurisdiction over Section 2241 petition because petitioner
was not incarcerated within that district).
Defendant's Request for Reduction of Sentence
should be DENIED.
FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
of this report and recommendation will be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects
to any part of this report and recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served
with a copy. See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis
for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation where the disputed
determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates
by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate
judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written
objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court,