US v. Justin Bell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00094-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999549032].. [14-4809]

Appeal: 14-4809

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4809

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN URIAH BELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00094-NCT-1)

Submitted:

March 17, 2015

Decided:

March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey A. Carpenter IV, THE LAW OFFICES OF HA (Alec) CARPENTER
IV, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen Thomas
Inman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4809

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Justin Uriah Bell pled guilty to possession of ammunition
by a convicted felon.
appeal,

counsel

He received a 42-month sentence.

has

filed

a

brief

pursuant

to

On

Anders

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious

grounds

for

sentence was reasonable.

appeal,

but

questioning

whether

Bell filed a supplemental brief.

Government declined to file a response.

the
The

We affirm.

Counsel questions whether the sentence was reasonable, in
light of Bell’s request for a sentence at the bottom of the
Sentencing
concurrent
sentence

Guidelines
to

for

standard.

an

range

and

undischarged

reasonableness,

for

state

applying

the

sentence

sentence.
an

abuse

We
of

to

be

review

a

discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).

The

court first reviews for significant procedural error, and if the
sentence is free from such error, it then considers substantive
reasonableness.
improperly

Id.

at

calculating

51.

the

Procedural

Guidelines

range,

error

includes

treating

the

Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately explain the
selected sentence.
district

court

Id.

must

To adequately explain the sentence, the

make

an

“individualized

assessment”

by

applying the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the case’s specific
circumstances.

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
2

Appeal: 14-4809

Doc: 21

Cir. 2009).
or

lengthy,

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

The individualized assessment need not be elaborate
but

it

appellate review.

must

be

adequate

Id. at 330.

to

allow

meaningful

Substantive reasonableness is

determined by considering the totality of the circumstances, and
if

the

range,

sentence
we

is

apply

a

within

States v.

that

properly-calculated

presumption

Strieper,

conclude

the

Bell

666

F.3d

has

of

288,

not

Guidelines

reasonableness.

295

(4th

rebutted

Cir.

the

United

2012).

presumption

We
of

reasonableness.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed Bell’s pro se
supplemental brief challenging the presentence report and the
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm Bell’s conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform Bell, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Bell requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Bell.

3

Appeal: 14-4809

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4