UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4809

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN URIAH BELL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00094-NCT-1)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey A. Carpenter IV, THE LAW OFFICES OF HA (Alec) CARPENTER 

IV, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen Thomas 

Inman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Justin Uriah Bell pled guilty to possession of ammunition 

by a convicted felon. He received a 42-month sentence. On 

appeal, counsel has 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 

sentence was reasonable. Bell filed a supplemental brief. The 

Government declined to file a response. We affirm.

Counsel questions whether the sentence was reasonable, in 

light of Bell’s request for a sentence at the bottom of the 

Sentencing Guidelines range and for the sentence to be 

concurrent to an undischarged state sentence. We review a 

sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). The 

court first reviews for significant procedural error, and if the 

sentence is free from such error, it then considers substantive 

reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural error includes 

improperly calculating the Guidelines range, treating the 

Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately explain the 

selected sentence. Id. To adequately explain the sentence, the 

district court must make an “individualized assessment” by 

applying the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the case’s specific 

circumstances. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th 
3

Cir. 2009). The individualized assessment need not be elaborate 

or lengthy, but it must be adequate to allow meaningful 

appellate review. Id. at 330. Substantive reasonableness is 

determined by considering the totality of the circumstances, and 

if the sentence is within the properly-calculated Guidelines 

range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. United 

States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). We 

conclude that Bell has not rebutted the presumption of 

reasonableness.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed Bell’s pro se 

supplemental brief challenging the presentence report and the 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Bell’s conviction and 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.
4

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