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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-4435]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
January 30, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Destin Kyjuan Bell appeals the 14-month sentence and 22month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of his
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
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.
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.
conclusion of the hearing, the court imposed a 14-month term of
imprisonment, followed by an additional term of 22 months of
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
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
Pg: 3 of 4
maximum” or are otherwise “plainly unreasonable.”
quotation marks omitted).
This court “first decide[s] whether
the sentence is unreasonable[,] . . . follow[ing] generally the
employ[s] in [its] review of original sentences.”
v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).
In analyzing a
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
whether it is plainly so.”
Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.
district court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven
of the Guidelines manual and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438–39; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
contained in Chapter 7, including the policy statement range, as
‘helpful assistance,’ and must also consider the applicable §
Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656; see also United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
Pg: 4 of 4
We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of
appropriately considered the Chapter Seven policy statements and
the applicable range, as well as relevant factors set forth in
Accordingly, we find that Bell’s 14-month sentence,
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
requires that counsel inform Bell, in writing, of the right to
If Bell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Bell.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?