Ellis Lee Bell, Iii v. United States of America

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 19a0377n.06
Case Nos. 17-6416/6417
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
17-6416
ELLIS LEE BELL, III,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellant.
17-6417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ELLIS LEE BELL, III,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: McKEAGUE, KETHLEDGE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Ellis Bell, III, was charged in federal court with unlawful
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Bell ultimately
pled guilty to the charge. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) found that Bell had four
prior convictions, three for aggravated burglary and one for burglary. Based on this, Bell qualified
for an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which mandates a 15-year
minimum sentence if a defendant has three prior convictions which constitute “violent felon[ies].”

-- 1 of 2 --

Case Nos. 17-6416/6417, Bell v. United States
- 2 -
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Bell did not object to the PSR. The district court accepted Bell’s plea
agreement and imposed a sentence of 180 months.
In 2016, Bell filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 2255. In light of our decision in United States v. Stitt, 860 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. 2017)
(en banc), the district court granted Bell’s habeas petition and re-sentenced Bell. In 2018, the
Supreme Court reversed our holding in Stitt. United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399, 406-07 (2018).
The government requests that we remand to the district court to reinstate Bell’s original sentence.
This appeal raises the same issues as those we considered in Brumbach v. United States,
Nos. 18-5703/5705, 2019 WL 3024727 (6th Cir. July 11, 2019). And we find that Brumbach
controls our decision here. Id. at *3.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of habeas relief, vacate the amended
criminal judgment, and remand with instructions to reinstate the original sentence.

-- 2 of 2 --