Court Opinion

ID: 9958268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 18:00:47.312607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.899504
License: Public Domain

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

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-50282
                                  Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                  ____________                                     April 8, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    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.
Case: 23-50282         Document: 47-1        Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/08/2024

                                   No. 23-50282

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 Mondragon-
Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65.

                                         2
Case: 23-50282         Document: 47-1       Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/08/2024

                                   No. 23-50282

         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 Holguin-
Hernandez 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.

                                        3
Case: 23-50282       Document: 47-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/08/2024

                                 No. 23-50282

       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.

                                      4