United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50282

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Timothy James Bell, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:22-CR-170-1 

______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Timothy James Bell appeals the within-guidelines sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea convictions for possession with intent to distribute 

50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, distribution of 50 grams or 

more of actual methamphetamine, and conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. On appeal, he 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50282 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2024
No. 23-50282

2

argues that his 170-month sentence, including the order that it run 

consecutively to any sentence resulting from a pending state charge, is 

unreasonable because the district court failed to provide sufficient 

explanation for the sentence as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). His 

argument amounts to an assertion of procedural error. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009); see also United States 

v. Ochoa, 977 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Bell asserts that Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 

(2020), changed the law such that his advocacy for a sentence lower than was 

imposed was sufficient to preserve this procedural issue on appeal. However, 

we have already rejected this argument. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 

986 F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th Cir. 2021). Because Bell did not object to the 

adequacy of the district court’s explanation at sentencing, his argument is 

subject to plain error review. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361. To 

establish plain error, Bell must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious 

and affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the 

error but will do so only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, 

alterations, and citation omitted).

Here, there is no clear or obvious error. See Rita v. United States, 551 

U.S. 338, 356-58 (2007); Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Regardless, even if Bell 

could show that the district court clearly or obviously erred by failing to 

provide sufficient explanation for his sentence, he fails to show that any such 

error affected his substantial rights. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Bell does 

not argue, and the record contains no indication, that a more detailed 

explanation would have resulted in a lesser sentence. See MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65.

Case: 23-50282 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2024
No. 23-50282

3

Likewise, the district court did not clearly or obviously err by failing

to state why it imposed Bell’s sentence to run consecutively to any sentence 

resulting from Bell’s pending state charge. While other circuits have 

addressed this issue, neither this court nor the Supreme Court has held that 

a district court’s failure to explain its rationale for imposing consecutive 

sentences constitutes a procedural error. United States v. Gozes-Wagner, 977 

F.3d 323, 343 & n.15 (5th Cir. 2020). Without controlling precedent 

requiring the district court to explain its rationale for imposing consecutive 

sentences, Bell cannot demonstrate clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 

U.S. at 135. 

We decline to interpret Bell’s brief to include a challenge to the 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence. See United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 

118, 122 n.7 (5th Cir. 1996); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 

1986).

Finally, we note that the brief demonstrates that appointed counsel, 

Chad Phillip Van Cleave, has not fulfilled “[h]is role as advocate [which] 

requires that he support his client’s appeal to the best of his ability.” Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). 

Counsel’s brief lacks appropriate citations to the record, misrepresents the 

appropriate standard of review, fails to set forth any specific facts concerning 

Bell’s sentencing hearing, and provides conclusory and broad arguments. 

Notably, counsel has continued to misrepresent the law by citing HolguinHernandez to assert that his procedural § 3553(c) argument is preserved for 

appellate review. He has continued to do so after we have issued opinions in 

his prior cases appropriately treating his argument as a procedural challenge

and explaining that where the defendant did not object to the adequacy of the 

district court’s explanation for his sentence at sentencing, review is for plain 

error. 

Case: 23-50282 Document: 47-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2024
No. 23-50282

4

Counsel is cautioned that future similar deficiencies could subject him 

to sanctions, including denial of payment of fees or disqualification from the 

Criminal Justice Act Panel. 

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

Case: 23-50282 Document: 47-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/08/2024