United States v. Bell ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 97-50992
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    HOWARD JAMES BELL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. W-97-CA-321 (W-95-CR-109-5)
    - - - - - - - - - -
    August 10, 1998
    Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Howard James Bell moves this court for a certificate of
    appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s summary denial
    of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
    We GRANT a COA on Bell’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel,
    breached-plea-agreement, and invalid-plea-agreement claims.     See
    28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).   Bell has shown that the district court
    erred in summarily dismissing these claims as precluded by the
    plea-agreement waiver of Bell’s right to challenge his sentence
    *
    Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
    47.5.4.
    No. 97-50992
    - 2 -
    in a § 2255 proceeding.   The waiver either excludes or does not
    reach these claims.   Briefing by the Government is not necessary
    at this time.   See Dickinson v. Wainwright, 
    626 F.2d 1184
    , 1186
    (5th Cir. 1980).   We VACATE AND REMAND these claims to the
    district court for further proceedings.   See Clark v. Williams,
    
    693 F.2d 381
    , 382 (5th Cir. 1982).
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COA is DENIED on Bell’s claim
    that the district court erred in determining the amount of drugs
    attributable to Bell.   To the extent that this claim is
    independent of Bell’s claim that counsel was ineffective for
    failing to object to this alleged error by the district court, it
    is a challenge to Bell’s sentence and is not excluded from the
    waiver in the plea agreement.
    Bell’s motion for recusal of the district court on remand is
    DENIED.
    COA GRANTED in part; VACATED AND REMANDED in part; COA
    DENIED in part; Motion for recusal on remand DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-50992

Filed Date: 8/26/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014