United States of America v. Gregory Bell

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY BELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50590
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01063-MMM
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50590 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 of 2 --