Karl Bernard Bell v. United States ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-15733 MAY 21, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:01-cr-00423-PCH-1
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
_________________________
(May 21, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On November 18, 2011, we issued an opinion holding that the district court
should have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Karl Bernard Bell’s pro se motion to
vacate his sentence, and we remanded for that purpose. United States v. Bell, 447
F. App’x 116, 118 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). Before our mandate issued on
January 10, 2012, the district court entered an order dismissing the case. That
order is the subject of this appeal, and the district court did not have jurisdiction to
enter it. See Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 906 F.2d 645, 649 (11th Cir.
1990) (“[A] district court . . . is without jurisdiction to rule in a case that is on
appeal, despite a decision by this court, until the mandate has issued.”). The
district court’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED. If the district
court’s view of the matter has not changed in the interim, it may reenter its order
after the mandate issues for this decision.
2