Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04394/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04394-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Dyson Bell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY DYSON BELL, a/k/a Wu,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:18-cr-00931-RBH-1)

Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: March 27, 2020

Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Everett E. McMillian, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4394 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Dyson Bell appeals his conviction and 57-month sentence imposed 

pursuant to his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2018). 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 the district court fully complied 

with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether Bell’s sentence is reasonable. Although informed of 

his right to do so, Bell did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The Government declined 

to file a response.*

Counsel first questions whether the district court complied with Rule 11, but points 

to no specific error. As Bell did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the 

adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 

(4th Cir. 2014). To prevail on a claim of plain error, Bell must demonstrate not only that 

the court erred but that the error affected his substantial rights. Id. at 816. 

Before accepting a guilty plea, the court must conduct a plea colloquy in which it 

informs the defendant of, and determines he understands, the rights he is relinquishing by 

pleading guilty, the charge to which he is pleading, and the maximum and mandatory 

minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 

F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure that the plea was voluntary and 

 * Because the Government fails to assert the appeal waiver, we may consider the 

issues raised by counsel and conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to 

Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007). 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4394 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 2 of 5
3

not the result of threats, force, or promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). 

We conclude that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11. Moreover, 

the court ensured that Bell entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that a factual 

basis supported the plea. See DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116, 119-20. Because Bell has failed 

to show that the district court’s acceptance of his guilty plea was improper, we affirm his 

conviction. 

Next, we review Bell’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse 

of discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails 

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence. Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we generally consider 

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) factors, analyzed any 

arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 

51. “Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, below, or withinGuidelines sentence, it must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the 

particular facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 

2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). As Bell did not preserve his procedural 

reasonableness claim below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 

572, 577-80 (4th Cir. 2010). 

The district court properly calculated Bell’s advisory Guidelines range and 

considered the § 3553(a) factors. However, the court did not provide an individualized 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4394 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 3 of 5
4

assessment of the sentence it imposed. At sentencing, the court did not address how the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors applied to Bell or his offense. Nevertheless, any error did not 

affect Bell’s substantial rights, as the court imposed the exact within-Guidelines-range 

sentence requested by Bell. 

Because Bell’s sentence is procedurally reasonable, we next consider whether the 

sentence imposed is substantively reasonable under “the totality of the circumstances.” 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence within or below a properly calculated 

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 333, 357 

(4th Cir. 2017). Such a “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is 

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. at 357-58 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Bell’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is 

presumed reasonable. Because Bell does not argue that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable, he has failed to rebut the presumption. We therefore affirm Bell’s sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4394 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 4 of 5
5

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4394 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 5 of 5