The Fourth Circuit denied habeas relief to a Virginia attempted bank robber who has since been released from prison, affirming Wednesday that his argument that he was sentenced under an unconstitutionally vague guideline did not meet procedural requirements for postconviction relief and could not be considered.

In a published unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit held that, even though Jason Bell "cannot challenge his sentence by filing another Section 2255 motion unless and until the Supreme Court creates a new retroactive constitutional rule," he was also unable to obtain relief by filing under another section. And so, even if Bell was right in his argument, he was stuck, the judges ruled. 

"There is no constitutional right for every worldly wrong, no judicial solution for every perceived problem," the panel wrote. "The scope of the habeas statutes reflects Congress' balance between the benefits of further review and the harms of endless litigation. In Bell's case, Congress has chosen finality over error correction. We are bound to follow that choice."

Bell pleaded guilty to attempted bank robbery and "carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence," and was sentenced in 2003 under guidelines that were mandatory at the time, the panel said. "As a career offender" based on two prior violent convictions, he was sentenced to 274 months plus a term of supervised release, the judges said.

And crucially, this was not the first time he had filed for post conviction relief, according to the court.

"His first Section 2255 motion in 2004 raised a sentencing error and was denied. After a 10-year hiatus, Bell began filing motions again," the panel said. However, because "second or successive Section 2255 motions are ordinarily prohibited," Bell was prevented from trying for relief again under that statute — which was the one the court said he had to use — even if facts were on his side.

After Bell's sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court made the guidelines under which he was sentenced advisory rather than mandatory to fall in line with the high court's 2004 holding in U.S. v. Booker that "judges could not constitutionally enhance a person's sentence under the guidelines by relying on facts not found by juries," the panel said.

In the present filing, Bell argued that the "career-offender provision, which mandatorily enhanced his sentence, was unconstitutionally vague," according to the court. Bell, who is presently serving three years of supervised release, argued he was unconstitutionally sentenced to serve 100 months more than he should have been, the panel said.

"He argues that, because his sentence was imposed under an unconstitutionally vague guideline provision, he is entitled to resentencing. But to even advance this theory, he must satisfy the procedural requirements that Congress has imposed on when courts may grant postconviction relief. He does not … so we lack jurisdiction," the panel wrote.

Although Section 2255 "is an independent statutory privilege and not technically 'habeas' in the sense of the common-law writ inherited by the colonies, it governs almost all federal postconviction review," the panel said.

"Bell was convicted of, and sentenced for, a federal crime. So, rather than seek habeas under Section 2241, he was obligated to seek relief under Section 2255. If he had done that, his motion would have been denied because this is not his first Section 2255 motion," the panel said, explaining the bind Bell was in. "A federal prisoner may not seek postconviction relief through Section 2241 unless Section 2255 is 'inadequate or ineffective' to test his detention's legality. Bell insists he meets that standard because he cannot satisfy the standard to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion. But the Supreme Court has rejected that argument."

Even though Bell could not use Section 2255 due to his history of filings, "it is nevertheless adequate and effective to test the legality of his claim," the panel wrote.

"Bell's further arguments are foreclosed by precedent. Regardless of the merits of his claim, the district court must be affirmed," the court concluded, affirming the dismissal of his petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Wednesday.

Judges Stephanie D. Thacker, Julius N. Richardson and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin sat on the panel for the Fourth Circuit.

Bell is represented by Dana Kagan McGinley, Andrew T. Tutt, R. Stanton Jones, Hafeez Khan and Hailey V. Sullivan of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, and Randy V. Cargill of the Roanoke, Virginia, Office of the Federal Public Defender.

The government is represented by Paul Theodore Crane, Kenneth A. Polite Jr. and Lisa H. Miller of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division, and Adair Ford Boroughs and Kathleen M. Stoughton of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina.

The case is Jason Tywann Bell v. J. Streeval, case number 22-6189, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

--Editing by Melissa Treolo.

Correction: A prior version of this article misidentified counsel for Bell. The error has been corrected.