United States v. Daniel Bell ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4588
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL DEWAYNE BELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:12-cr-00644-RMG-1)
Submitted: February 10, 2014 Decided: February 14, 2014
Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Clay Kulp, KULP LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Dewayne Bell appeals the 145-month sentence
imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to
bribery of a public official, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 201(b)(1)(C), (b)(4) (2012), possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(D) (2012), and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e)(1)
(2012). On appeal, Bell’s counsel 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
Bell’s guilty plea was valid and whether the sentence imposed by
the district court was procedurally reasonable. Bell was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did
not file one. Finding no error, we affirm.
Bell first questions the validity of his guilty plea.
Our review of the plea hearing reveals that the district court
fully complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in
conducting the plea colloquy. See United States v. General, 278
F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of review).
Thus, the court did not err in accepting as knowing and
voluntary Bell’s guilty plea.
Second, Bell questions the procedural reasonableness
of his sentence. In reviewing a sentence, we must ensure that
2
the district court did not commit any “significant procedural
error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable
Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Upon review, we
conclude that the district court committed no procedural error
in imposing the 145-month sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of
review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Bell, in writing, of his 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, 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. 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
3