US v. Daniel Bell, No. 13-4588 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4588 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL DEWAYNE BELL, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 imposed by of a Bell district the bribery Dewayne court public § 201(b)(1)(C), appeals official, (b)(4) (2012), the following in 145-month his guilty violation possession sentence of with plea 18 to U.S.C. 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. F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. United States v. Lynn, 592 2010) (providing standard of review). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We 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. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
