United States of America v. Kenneth M. Bell

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KENNETH M. BELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10163
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00132-TLN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth M. Bell appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bell contends that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10163
for its decision to impose a sentence above the Guidelines range. We review for
plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and
conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court sufficiently
explained its decision to impose a 24-month sentence with no supervision to
follow. Any error in the district court’s failure to explain why its reasons for
imposing this sentence specifically justified an upward variance from the
Guidelines range is not plain because Bell has not shown that there is a reasonable
probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court
done so. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --