United States v. Destin Bell , 676 F. App'x 182 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Destin Kyjuan Bell appeals the 14-month sentence and 22-
month 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. Bell began his term of supervised release in October
2015. 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. The
district court noted that, under U.S. Sentencing 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
maximum” or are otherwise “plainly unreasonable.” United States
v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted). This court “first decide[s] whether
the sentence is unreasonable[,] . . . follow[ing] generally the
procedural and substantive considerations that [the court]
employ[s] in [its] review of original sentences.” United States
v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). In analyzing a
revocation sentence, we apply “a more ‘deferential appellate
posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of
discretion’ than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines
sentences.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Only if a
revocation sentence is unreasonable must [this court] assess
whether it is plainly so.” Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.
A revocation 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. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438–39; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
(2012). The 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
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). Accordingly, we find that Bell’s 14-month sentence,
followed 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 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
4