United States v. Antonio Bell

── United States v. Antonio Bell ── Case No.: 25-11787 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 31, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11787 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 1 of 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11787 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTONIO BELL, a.k.a. Antonio Alexander Bell, a.k.a. Antonio A. Bell, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:24-cr-00039-CDL-CHW-1 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-11787 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11787 Antonio Bell appeals his total sentence of 165 months’ im- prisonment and 36 months’ supervised release for possessing a fire- arm as a convicted felon. On appeal, Bell contests the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. First, Bell argues that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) 1 because the court (1) errone- ously concluded that he possessed the firearm in connection with the felony offense of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute and (2) improperly relied on evidence related to con- duct for which he was not charged in federal court. Second, Bell argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court did not adequately consider his arguments for a downward variance. We disagree and affirm the district court. I Bell first argues that the district court erred in granting the four-level § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement. We review a district court’s legal interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Bishop, 940 F.3d 1242, 1250 (11th Cir. 2019). The district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous when they leave us with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). A court’s “choice between two permissible views of the evidence will rarely constitute clear error, so long as the basis of 1 Following the 2025 Guidelines revisions, this provision is now 2K2.1(b)(7)(8). USCA11 Case: 25-11787 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 3 of 8 25-11787 Opinion of the Court 3 the trial court’s decision is supported by the record and the court did not misapply a rule of law.” United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717, 731 (11th Cir. 2019). A district court’s findings of fact at sentencing must be “sup- ported by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Brooks, 112 F.4th 937, 947 (11th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). “The district court’s factual findings for purposes of sentencing may be based on, among other things, evidence heard during trial, undisputed state- ments in the PSI, or evidence presented during the sentencing hear- ing.”