UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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 
3

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). 
4

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