United States v. Bell, 041018 FED7, 17-2307

Docket Nº:17-2307
Opinion Judge:Bauer, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick D. Bell, also known as Rock, Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:Before Bauer, Flaum, and Manion, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:April 10, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Derrick D. Bell, also known as Rock, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2307

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

April 10, 2018

Argued March 29, 2018

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. No. 3:16-cr-50011-1 - Frederick J. Kapala, Judge.

Before Bauer, Flaum, and Manion, Circuit Judges.

Bauer, Circuit Judge.

During the execution of a search warrant on January 15, 2016, ATF agents found Derrick Bell in possession of a .40 caliber pistol. Bell was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm on March 1, 2016, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and on February 6, 2017, he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.

In the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), the Probation Officer calculated Bell's total offense level as 23, with a criminal history category of VI, for a Sentencing Guideline range of 92 to 115 months. The PSR stated that "the [G]uideline range for a term of supervised release is 1 year to 3 years." See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2). The Probation Officer also filed a separate sentencing recommendation, which provided a chart breaking down the statutory and Guideline ranges for supervised release. Finally, the government filed a "Notice of Agreement Regarding Supervised Release, " which stated that the government recommended a term of supervised release within the Guidelines range of one to three years.

The district court sentenced Bell to 98 months' imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Bell raises three procedural challenges to his sentence. Since we conclude that the district court did not commit any errors, we affirm.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Failure to Calculate the Guidelines Range for Supervised Release

Bell first argues that the district court procedurally erred when it failed to explicitly make a Guidelines calculation for his term of supervised release on the record. We review procedural errors at sentencing de novo. United States v. Gibbs, 578 F.3d 694, 695 (7th Cir. 2009). However, we have previously reviewed a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP