UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MICHAEL DEWAYNE BELL, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 12-5056 & 12-5071 (D.C. Nos. 4:10-CV -00138-GKF-TLW & 4:06-CR-00140-GKF-1) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before MATHESON , Circuit Judge, PORFILIO , Senior Circuit Judge, and BALDOCK , Circuit Judge.
Michael Dewayne Bell, a federal prisone r proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal from the district court’s decisions on severa l motions related to the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking his sent ence. We deny his applications for a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismiss the appeals. I. Background Bell was convicted of aggravated ba nk robbery and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and was sentenced to cons ecutive life sentences

* This order is not binding precedent excep t under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 29, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - on each count pursuant to the “Three Strikes” provision of 18 U.S. C. § 3559(c)(1). We affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal, and the Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari. His subse quent § 2255 petition was based on alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel , principally counsel’s failure to raise issues Bell had requested to be raised. The district court denied relief, and we denied his request for a COA and di smissed his appeals. Pertinent to the current appeal s, Bell then filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), alleging that the distri ct court had failed to address five issues asserting ineffective assistan ce of appellate counsel that he had raised in his § 2255 motion. The district court set out all five issues in its or der, so we need not repeat them here. The court determin ed that it had in fact consid ered three of the issues in connection with Bell’s § 2255 petition, and that the Rule 60(b) motion was a second or successive § 2255 motion with respect to those issues. See United States v. Nelson , 465 F.3d 1145, 1149 (10th Cir. 2006) (“ It is the relief sought, not [the] pleading’s title, that determ ines whether the pleading is a § 2255 motion.”). The court dismissed those three issues for lack of jurisdiction because Bell had failed to obtain prior permission from this court to file a second or su ccessive § 2255 motion as to those issues. See In re Cline , 531 F.3d 1249, 1251-52 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The district court further determined that it had not directly addressed Bell’s other two issues in its order denying his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because Bell- 3 - was asserting a defect in the integrity of the § 2255 proceed ings with respect to those two issues, the court consider ed them on their merits. See Nelson , 465 F.3d at 1147 (discussing Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524 (2005)). Th e court noted that relief under Rule 60(b) is allowed onl y in exceptional circumstances. Davis v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr. , 507 F.3d 1246, 1248 (10th Cir. 200 7). And the court concluded that exceptional circumstances were not presente d in this case because one of Bell’s issues was meritless and b ecause this court had alread y decided in Bell’s direct appeal that the other issue was moot. The district cour t denied Bell a COA on these two issues because jurists of reason would not fi nd the court’s resolution of the issues to be debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Upon receiving the district court’s opi nion and order, Bell filed a notice of appeal in the district court, resulting in appeal No. 12-5056. He also filed three more motions in the district court—a motion fo r a COA in No. 12-5056, a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 12-5056, and a motion asking the district court to take judicial notice of its alleged failure to decide two of his prior motions. The court denied all of these mo tions in the same order. Bell filed a notice of appeal, resulting in appeal No. 12-5071. We have reviewed Bell’s briefs and th e records on appeal under the applicable standards for a COA. The district cour t thoroughly and corr ectly addressed and resolved the issues Bell rais ed in his Rule 60(b) and subsequent motions. As no- 4 - jurist of reason could reasonably debate the correctness of th e district court’s decisions, we DENY his requests for a COA and DISMISS these matters.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk