United States v. Bell

In United States v. Bell, No. 23-50282 (5th Cir. Apr. 8, 2024) (unpublished), the defendant argued that his 170-month sentence was procedurally improper because the district court had ordered it to run consecutively to a state sentence and because the court had failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentence.

First, the Fifth Circuit reiterated that a defendant’s request for a lower sentence is not sufficient to preserve an argument that the sentence was procedurally improper.  Because Bell had not objected to procedural reasonableness in the district court, his claim on appeal was reviewed for plain error, and there was no plain error here.  In short, “the record contain[ed] no indication[] that a more detailed explanation would have resulted in a lesser sentence,” and the Fifth Circuit has never held that a failure to explain a consecutive sentence constitutes procedural error.

Second, the Fifth Circuit noted the poor quality of the work done by Bell’s appointed counsel.  It concluded that the attorney had not “support[ed] his client’s appeal to the best of his ability.” Anders v. California, 386 U.S> 738, 744 (1967).  As it explained, “[c]ounsel’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.”  Moreover, counsel “continued to misrepresent the law” despite prior Fifth Circuit opinions that explained this very issue in this attorney’s own cases.   The court “cautioned” counsel that future deficient briefs could result in sanctions against him personally.