US v. Destin Bell


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00295-TDS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000020497].. [16-4435]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4435 Doc: 22 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DESTIN KYJUAN BELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00295-TDS-1) Submitted: January 30, 2017 Decided: February 9, 2017 Before TRAXLER, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4435 Doc: 22 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Destin Kyjuan Bell appeals the 14-month sentence and 22month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We affirm. Bell pled guilty in 2011 to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon and was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. 2015. Bell began his term of supervised release in October In March 2016, a warrant was issued for Bell’s arrest based on a number of violations of conditions of supervision. At the revocation hearing, Bell admitted the violations. district court noted that, under U.S. Sentencing The Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 7B1.4(a), Bell’s advisory range was 12 to 18 months, with a statutory maximum of 24 months, and a maximum term of supervised release available was 36 months. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court imposed a 14-month term of imprisonment, followed by an additional term of 22 months of supervised release. Bell timely appealed. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questions the reasonableness of Bell’s sentence. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental informal brief, Bell has not done so. We review sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release to determine whether they “fall[] outside the statutory 2 Appeal: 16-4435 Doc: 22 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 maximum” or are otherwise “plainly unreasonable.” v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, quotation marks omitted). 373 (4th Cir. United States 2015) (internal This court “first decide[s] whether the sentence is unreasonable[,] . . . follow[ing] generally the procedural and substantive considerations that employ[s] in [its] review of original sentences.” v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). revocation posture sentence, we concerning apply issues “a of more fact United States In analyzing a ‘deferential and the review court] for appellate exercise of discretion’ than sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) revocation reasonableness [the (internal sentence quotation is unreasonable whether it is plainly so.” A revocation marks [G]uidelines omitted). must [this “Only court] if a assess Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373. sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines manual and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. (2012). The Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438–39; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) court “must consider the policy statements contained in Chapter 7, including the policy statement range, as ‘helpful assistance,’ and must also consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors.” Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656; see also United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). 3 Appeal: 16-4435 Doc: 22 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pg: 4 of 4 We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Bell’s revocation hearing, and find that the district court appropriately considered the Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable range, as well as relevant factors set forth in § 3553(a). followed Accordingly, we find that Bell’s 14-month sentence, by 22 months of supervised release, is not plainly unreasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Bell’s 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 in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bell. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?