United States v. Justin Bell ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Justin Uriah Bell pled guilty to possession of ammunition
by a convicted felon. He received a 42-month sentence. On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
sentence was reasonable. Bell filed a supplemental brief. The
Government declined to file a response. We affirm.
Counsel questions whether the sentence was reasonable, in
light of Bell’s request for a sentence at the bottom of the
Sentencing Guidelines range and for the sentence to be
concurrent to an undischarged state sentence. We review a
sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. 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. Id. at 51. Procedural error includes
improperly calculating the Guidelines range, 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. Id. To adequately explain the sentence, the
district court must 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
Cir. 2009). The individualized assessment need not be elaborate
or lengthy, but it must be adequate to allow meaningful
appellate review. Id. at 330. Substantive reasonableness is
determined by considering the totality of the circumstances, and
if the sentence is within the properly-calculated Guidelines
range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. United
States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). We
conclude that Bell has not rebutted the presumption 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Bell.
3
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