Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Aaron Bell v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a case brought by Aaron Bell. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bell's complaint. Bell, who had been convicted of robbery and conspiracy, challenged federal and state statutes prohibiting felons from possessing firearms or body armor. However, the court found the statutes were constitutional as applied to Bell given his violent criminal history. The court also rejected Bell's other claims, including alleged violations of due process and other constitutional rights. It determined Bell's state collateral review of his conviction was properly denied and the All Writs Act did not provide a basis for reviewing his conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Aaron Bell v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2K views4 pages
    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a case brought by Aaron Bell. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bell's complaint. Bell, who had been convicted of robbery and conspiracy, challenged federal and state statutes prohibiting felons from possessing firearms or body armor. However, the court found the statutes were constitutional as applied to Bell given his violent criminal history. The court also rejected Bell's other claims, including alleged violations of due process and other constitutional rights. It determined Bell's state collateral review of his conviction was properly denied and the All Writs Act did not provide a basis for reviewing his conviction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-4800

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a case brought by Aaron Bell. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bell's complaint. Bell, who had been convicted of robbery and conspiracy, challenged federal and state statutes prohibiting felons from possessing firearms or body armor. However, the court found the statutes were constitutional as applied to Bell given his violent criminal history. The court also rejected Bell's other claims, including alleged violations of due process and other constitutional rights. It determined Bell's state collateral review of his conviction was properly denied and the All Writs Act did not provide a basis for reviewing his conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    2K views4 pages

    Aaron Bell v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a case brought by Aaron Bell. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bell's complaint. Bell, who had been convicted of robbery and conspiracy, challenged federal and state statutes prohibiting felons from possessing firearms or body armor. However, the court found the statutes were constitutional as applied to Bell given his violent criminal history. The court also rejected Bell's other claims, including alleged violations of due process and other constitutional rights. It determined Bell's state collateral review of his conviction was properly denied and the All Writs Act did not provide a basis for reviewing his conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The passage discusses a court case where Aaron Bell challenged several statutes as unconstitutional because they prohibited him from possessing firearms after being convicted of a felony. The court rejected all of Bell's challenges.

    Bell was convicted in 2003 of robbery and conspiracy for pointing guns at employees during a robbery at a fast food restaurant where he worked. He was sentenced to 5 to 10 years in prison.

    Bell is challenging 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 931 and 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 6105, 6106 as unconstitutional as applied to him. These statutes prohibit possession of firearms and body armor by convicted felons. Bell argues they leave him unable to defend himself since being released from prison in 2012.

    DLD-284

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 13-4800
    ___________
    AARON L. BELL,
    Appellant
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA;
    CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (E.D. Pa. Civil No. 13-cv-05533)
    District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez
    ____________________________________

    Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)


    or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    June 19, 2014
    Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: July 22, 2014)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    Aaron Bell, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
    1915(e)(2)(B). We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

    In 2003, Bell was convicted of robbery and conspiracy in the Philadelphia County
    Court of Common Pleas. Bell and another man went to the fast food restaurant where
    Bell worked, pointed guns at the employees, and demanded money. Bell was sentenced
    to five to ten years in prison.
    In his present complaint, Bell alleges that his sentence expired in April 2012, that
    he is currently law-abiding, and that he poses no threat to society. He states that since
    December 2012, he has been the victim of two assaults and robberies and he has been
    threatened with harm on two other occasions. Bell avers that as a result of federal and
    state statutes prohibiting possession of a firearm and body armor by a convicted felon, he
    is without an adequate means to defend himself from the violence of others. Bell seeks,
    among other things, a declaratory judgment pronouncing these statutes, 18 U.S.C.
    922(g)(1), 931 and 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 6105, 6106, unconstitutional as applied to
    him. Bell also asserts that his state and federal petitions for collateral review of his
    conviction were improperly denied. He seeks review of his conviction under the All
    Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651.
    The District Court did not err in rejecting Bells constitutional challenges to
    18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), which prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person who has
    been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
    We have ruled that the statute is facially valid under the Second Amendment because we
    must presume, under most circumstances, that felon dispossession statutes regulate
    conduct which falls outside the Second Amendments guarantee. See United States v.
    2

    Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 170-72 (3d Cir. 2011) (discussing District of Columbia v. Heller,
    554 U.S. 570 (2008)). Bells as-applied challenge fails because his circumstances are not
    distinguishable from those of persons historically barred from Second Amendment
    protections. Id. at 174. Such protections did not extend to those who were likely to
    commit violent offenses, id. at 173, and Bell committed a violent felony for which his
    sentence only recently expired.
    We also agree with the District Court that Bell fails to state a claim for a violation
    of his right to substantive due process based on his contention that the statute and a lack
    of police protection leave him defenseless against criminals. Bell asserts his due process
    claim under the special relationship doctrine, an exception to the rule that the Due
    Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty on a state to protect citizens from
    private violence. Sanford v. Stiles, 456 F.3d 298, 303-04 (3d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). As
    recognized by the District Court, this exception has been found to apply when there is a
    custodial relationship between an individual and the state and no such relationship is
    present here. Id. at 304 n.4. Bell also asserts his claim under the state-created danger
    exception, but it is third parties, not the operation of the statute or the government, that
    have created any danger to Bell. See Henry v. City of Erie, 728 F.3d 275, 282-85 (3d
    Cir. 2013) (explaining that a defendants actions must be a fairly direct cause of harm).
    We also conclude, for the reasons stated by the District Court, that Bells
    procedural due process claim, claims of violations of the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth
    Amendments, and claim that 922(g)(1) violates the constitutional prohibition on bills of
    3

    attainder are without merit. We also find no error in the District Courts rejection of
    Bells constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. 931, which prohibits a person who has
    been convicted of a felony that is a crime of violence from possessing body armor, 18
    Pa. Cons. Stat. 6105, which prohibits a person who has been convicted of certain
    offenses, including robbery, from possessing a firearm, and 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 6106,
    which prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in a vehicle or concealed on his person
    without a license. These challenges fail for essentially the same reasons that Bells
    challenges to 922(g)(1) fail.
    Finally, Bell argues that his state and federal petitions for collateral review of his
    conviction were improperly denied and seeks review of his conviction under the All
    Writs Act. We agree with the District Court that, to the extent Bell seeks a writ of coram
    nobis based on the continuing consequences of his conviction, coram nobis is not
    available to attack a state criminal judgment. Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718
    (3d Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
    Accordingly, because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will
    affirm the judgment of the District Court.

    You might also like