Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 31, 2024

Belle v. United States

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:23-cv-09697
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Belle v. United States, Judge Caproni denied Wendell Belle’s reconsideration motion and extended his deadline to seek recall of the appellate mandate.

Who this affects

Wendell Belle, whose reconsideration motion was denied and whose deadline to file a motion to recall the Second Circuit’s mandate was set for March 8, 2024; and the United States as the respondent.

What happened

In Belle v. United States, Wendell Belle had filed a post-conviction petition under Section 2255. On January 9, 2024, the court paused that petition and directed him to ask the Second Circuit to recall its mandate, following the procedure described in Taylor v. United States.

Belle then asked the court to reconsider that direction, appoint new appellate counsel, and grant the first ground of his petition. The opinion does not describe the substance of that ground.

Judge Valerie Caproni denied Belle’s reconsideration motion. She amended the earlier order only to require Belle to file the motion to recall the mandate by March 8, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Belle v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-09697
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 31, 2024

Background

Wendell Belle is the movant in a proceeding involving a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure for challenging a federal criminal judgment or sentence after conviction. On January 9, 2024, the Court stayed, or paused, Belle’s petition and directed him to file a motion asking the Second Circuit to recall its mandate—the formal document ending an appeal. The Court directed him to follow the procedure described in Taylor v. United States, 822 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2016).

Motion

On January 30, 2024, Belle filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask a court to reconsider an order. He asked the Court to reconsider its January 9 order, appoint new appellate counsel, and grant the first ground of his Section 2255 petition.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni denied Belle’s Rule 59(e) motion. The Court stated that its direction to file a motion to recall the mandate was the procedure set forth in Taylor. The Court amended its January 9 order only by setting March 8, 2024, as the deadline for Belle to file the motion to recall the mandate. The Clerk was directed to mail Belle a copy of the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.