US v. Destin Bell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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