Belle v. United States
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-09697
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Belle v. United States, Judge Caproni stayed Belle’s sentence challenge pending appellate-related steps.
Wendell Belle’s pending motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence was paused; the order also directs him to pursue a motion to recall the Second Circuit’s mandate.
What happened
Wendell Belle filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court had ordered the United States to respond rather than dismissing the motion immediately.
The United States responded and asked the court to pause consideration of Belle’s motion. The opinion does not decide whether Belle’s sentence should be changed.
Judge Valerie Caproni stayed Belle’s § 2255 motion and directed him to file a motion asking the Second Circuit to recall its September 9, 2022 mandate under the procedures described in Taylor v. United States. The court stated what would happen depending on whether that motion is granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Belle v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-09697
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 9, 2024
Background
Wendell Belle filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on October 26, 2023. The motion asks the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The related criminal case is identified as No. 15-CR-0537-3 (VEC).
The court previously ordered that the § 2255 motion should not be summarily dismissed and directed the United States to respond within 60 days. The United States filed its response on January 3, 2024, and requested that the court stay consideration of the motion.
Ruling
The court ordered that Belle’s § 2255 motion is stayed pending further actions. It directed Belle to file a motion to recall the mandate issued by the Second Circuit on September 9, 2022, following the procedures described in Taylor v. United States, 822 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2016).
The court stated that, if Belle’s motion to recall the mandate is granted and his petition for rehearing and/or petition for review by the Supreme Court is unsuccessful, he will need to file a new motion under § 2255. If the motion to recall the mandate is denied, the court will lift the stay on the existing § 2255 motion. The order does not decide the merits of Belle’s challenge to his sentence. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Belle a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.