Roberta Bell v. Warden, Fci Dublin ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 4 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTA RONIQUE BELL, No. 21-15383
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-07346-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WARDEN, FCI DUBLIN,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 18, 2022
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
In 1996, a federal jury found Roberta Ronique Bell (“Bell”) guilty of two
charges related to witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1), (b) in
connection with the torture and murder of Doreen Proctor (“Proctor”). She was
sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder charge. See id. § 1512(a). In 2017,
Bell sought to vacate her § 1512 convictions and requested a new trial because she
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
claimed that intervening Supreme Court precedent rendered her actually innocent
of federal witness tampering. The district court denied Bell’s habeas petition and
her request for an evidentiary hearing, and we affirm.
“A district court’s denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is reviewed de novo.” Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293,
1295 (9th Cir. 2018). “A district court’s decision to deny a motion for an
evidentiary hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” United States v.
Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 2003).
1. A petitioner may file a § 2241 habeas petition “under the escape hatch of
§ 2255 when [she] (1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an
unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464
F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). To prove actual
innocence, a “petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is
more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted [her].” Id.(quoting Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998)).
Here, Bell cannot establish her actual innocence. The record contains
sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable juror could have relied to conclude
that it was reasonably likely that Proctor would have communicated with a federal
law enforcement officer had she not been killed. See Fowler v. United States, 563
U.S. 668, 678 (2011) (“The Government need not show that such a
2
communication, had it occurred, would have been federal beyond a reasonable
doubt, nor even that it is more likely than not”; rather, “the Government must show
that the likelihood of communication to a federal officer was more than remote,
outlandish, or simply hypothetical.”). Therefore, under our Circuit’s precedent,
Bell’s undisputed actual innocence under the alternative official proceeding theory
of witness tampering, on its own, does not entitle her to a new trial. See Lorentsen
v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954–55 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring that when a petitioner
seeking habeas relief was convicted under two theories, and one of those theories
was later precluded by intervening Supreme Court precedent, the petitioner must
still prove actual innocence under the remaining theory).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an
evidentiary hearing. The district court wrote a detailed opinion that discussed and
considered the evidence in the record, and Bell has not shown that there is
additional, material evidence not already considered.
AFFIRMED.
3