United States v. Gregory Bell ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 27 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-50590
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01063-MMM
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    GREGORY BELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2010 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Gregory Bell appeals from the 92-month sentence imposed following his
    guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition,
    in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1291, and we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Bell contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying upon
    clearly erroneous facts at sentencing. This contention fails because the district
    court’s view of the evidence was plausible in light of the record. See United States
    v. Cantrell, 
    433 F.3d 1269
    , 1284 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the record as a whole
    indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty,
    
    520 F.3d 984
    , 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
    Bell also contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to
    adequately weigh the sentencing factors, and that the within-Guidelines sentence is
    substantively unreasonable because of the minor nature of his prior convictions
    that triggered an increased base offense level. The record reflects that the district
    court considered and properly weighed the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.
    § 3553(a), that it considered Bell’s arguments for a lower sentence, and that the
    sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Cherer, 
    513 F.3d 1150
    , 1159-61 (9th Cir. 2008); 
    Carty, 520 F.3d at 993-94
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    09-50590
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-50590

Filed Date: 12/27/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021