UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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