USA v. Joshua Bell


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-51094 Affirmed] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 10/22/2010 for Appellant Joshua Bell [09-51094]

Download PDF
USA v. Joshua Bell Doc. 0 Case: 09-51094 Document: 00511250741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED N o . 09-51094 S u m m a r y Calendar October 1, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. J O S H U A BELL, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 7:09-CR-179-1 B e fo r e REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J o s h u a Bell pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting attempted bank robbery (C o u n t 1), conspiracy to commit bank robbery (Count 2), and aiding and abetting t h e use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Count 3). Bell was sentenced w it h in the applicable guidelines ranges to 71 months of imprisonment on Count 1 and 60 months of imprisonment on Count 2, to run concurrently. As to Count 3 , Bell was sentenced above the guidelines range to 20 years of imprisonment, t o be served consecutively to counts 1 and 2. Bell also was sentenced to five Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 09-51094 Document: 00511250741 Page: 2 No. 09-51094 Date Filed: 10/01/2010 y e a r s of supervised release on Counts 1 and 3 and three years of supervised r e le a s e on Count 2, to be served concurrently. Additionally, Bell was sentenced t o pay $30,154.63 in restitution. Bell argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a su bstan t iv e ly unreasonable sentence. He argues that the district court's reasons w e r e not sufficient to support its 10-year deviation from the guidelines range on C o u n t 3 and that the district court's reasons for the variance already were r e fle c t e d in the substantial guidelines enhancements that the district court im p o s e d . However, the district court had the discretion to select an aboveg u id e lin e s sentence, and it discussed in great detail how the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) fa c t o r s were implicated in reaching Bell's sentence and why a deviation from the g u id e lin e s sentence was appropriate. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 505 1 (2007). Accordingly, Bell has not shown that the district court's variance from t h e sentencing guidelines range was an abuse of discretion. See id. A F F IR M E D . 2

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?