Defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment — United States v. Bell (Dkt. 26, D.D.C.)

Summary

Defendant James Kyle Bell's motion to amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in United States v. James Kyle Bell, No. 21 CR 284 (JDB), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed January 11, 2022 as Document 26. It recites that at the December 6, 2021 sentencing hearing counsel asked the court to recommend placement at FCI Lompac, CA, as reflected in the December 9, 2021 judgment. Bell asks the court to amend its recommendation to FCI Seagoville in Dallas, Texas, and states that the government takes no position.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 26 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 4




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA            :
                                    :
      v.                            :
                                    :                 No. 21 CR 284 (JDB)
                                    :
JAMES KYLE BELL,                    :
            Defendant.              :
____________________________________:


                    DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
        Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), Mr. James Bell, through counsel,

respectfully moves this Court to amend its December 9, 2021, Judgment. During Mr. Bell’s

December 6, 2021, sentencing hearing, counsel requested that the Court recommend to the

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that Mr. Bell be placed at FCI Lompac, CA. Mr. Bell now respectfully

requests that the Court amend its recommendation to FCI Seagoville, in Dallas, Texas. The

government takes no position this request.

                                        BACKGROUND

        On December 6, 2021, Mr. James Bell was sentenced to forty-six months of

incarceration, to be served at FCI Lompac, CA. On December 9, 2021, the Court issued its

Judgment which reflected the recommendation to BOP for FCI Lompac. See ECF No. 24. Mr.

Bell is awaiting notification from BOP of his surrender date to the facility.

        Counsel’s request for FCI Lompac was based primarily on its proximity to Mr. Bell’s

residence with his wife and four minor children. However, with Mr. Bell’s impending absence,

his family is preparing to relocate to Dallas, Texas. Mr. Bell was unaware at the time of

sentencing, whether, and if so, where his family might relocate after the sentencing hearing was

held.

          Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 26 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 4




       18 USC §3641 (b) states that BOP will “place the prisoner in a facility as close as

practicable to the prisoner’s primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a facility within

500 driving miles of that residence.” FCI Lompac in California would not be the closest facility

to Mr. Bell’s residence in Dallas, TX, and would impose a severe hardship on Mr. Bell’s family.

                                           ARGUMENT

       A motion filed more than ten days after the entry of judgment is considered a motion

seeking relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

McMillian v. District of Columbia, 233 F.R.D. 179, 179 n.1 (D.D.C. 2005). Additionally, the

moving party seeking relief from the judgment bears the burden of proof. Mazengo v. Mzengi,

542 F. 2upp. 2d 96, 100 n.3 (D.D.C. 2008).

       Pursuant to Rule 60(b), a district court “may relieve a party or its legal representative

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,

could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud

(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or

discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it

prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

       Here, because information related to Mr. Bell’s relocation to Dallas, Texas was unknown

to counsel at the time of the sentencing, and manifest injustice will result should the Court

maintain the recommendation to a BOP facility more than 500 miles away, this Court should

amend its Judgment and recommend FCI Seagoville, TX.

         Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 26 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 4




                                       CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, for any other reasons that this Court may deem just and

proper, Mr. respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and amendment its Judgment to

reflect FCI Seagoville, TX.

                                                   Respectfully submitted,

                                                   /s/ Brandi Harden
                                                   ____________________
                                                   Brandi Harden
                                                   Bar No. 470706
                                                   Counsel for James Kyle Bell
                                                   Harden|Pinckney, PLLC
                                                   400 7th Street, N.W. Suite 604
                                                   Washington, DC 20004
                                                   bharden@hardenpinckney.com

         Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 26 Filed 01/11/22 Page 4 of 4




                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that on January 11, 2022, I caused a copy of the foregoing motion to be

served on counsel of record via ECF.


                                                    /s/ Brandi Harden
                                                    __________________________
                                                    Brandi Harden, Esq.

File and source

File

26.pdf

Size

164,090 bytes

SHA-256

087ce53e9a79f7a6357168508da3a87939e5153e4e31743fb294728aa60a6792

Our copy

26.pdf