UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KARL BERNARD BELL, Defendant-Appellant., 501 Fed. Appx. 946

Summary

Defendant's first appeal of the district court's original denial of his first "Motion for Clarification" divested the district court of jurisdiction over the matter. Jurisdiction had not returned to the district court when it dismissed the "Motion for Clarification" on November 22, 2011 prior to the appellate court's mandate for dismissal; thus, the appeal of that dismissal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction. His later appeal of the November 22 dismissal could not have divested the district court of jurisdiction it did not otherwise have at the time. The district court regained jurisdiction over the matter when the appellate court's first mandate issued on January 10, 2012. And the mandate instructed the district court to dismiss the "Motion for Clarification," which it did on February 6, 2012. In entering the February 6 dismissal, the district court was following the January 10 mandate to dismiss the motion. Under the law of the case doctrine and the mandate rule, that ...