Filed: Jan. 14, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES PATRICK MONDELL, Defendant – Appellant. No. 10-4457 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES PATRICK MONDELL, Defendant – Appellant. No. 10-4458 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES PATRICK MONDELL, Defendant – Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville; Rock Hill
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES PATRICK MONDELL, Defendant – Appellant. No. 10-4457 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES PATRICK MONDELL, Defendant – Appellant. No. 10-4458 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES PATRICK MONDELL, Defendant – Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville; Rock Hill;..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4451
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES PATRICK MONDELL,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 10-4457
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES PATRICK MONDELL,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 10-4458
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES PATRICK MONDELL,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Greenville; Rock Hill; Charleston.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cr-01078-
HMH-1; 0:05-cr-00174-HMH-2; 2:04-cr-00109-HMH-2)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: January 14, 2011
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Guy J. Vitetta, Daniel Island, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
James Mondell appeals the forty month, twenty-four
month, and thirty-three month consecutive sentences imposed
following his guilty plea to one count of bank fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344 (2006), and two supervised
release violations. Counsel for Mondell filed a brief in this
court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for
appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred when it
imposed consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm the conviction and sentence.
As counsel for Mondell advocated within-Guidelines
sentences without asking for the sentences to run concurrently,
we review Mondell’s sentence for plain error. See United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576-77 (4th Cir. 2010)
(unpreserved sentencing errors reviewed only for plain error).
In reviewing a sentence, we begin by examining the record for
significant procedural error. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). If there are no procedural errors, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
into account the totality of the circumstances. United
States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Where, as
here, a defendant is sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment
at the same time, the district court may order that the
3
sentences run concurrently or consecutively. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3584(a) (2006); see also United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d
115, 118-19 (4th Cir. 1998). In determining whether the terms
will run concurrently or consecutively, the district court must
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3584(b).
We hold that the district court did not err when it
imposed consecutive sentences. The court explicitly considered
the § 3553(a) factors, specifically emphasizing Mondell’s
extensive criminal history, his exceedingly high criminal
history category, and the need for deterrence. The imposition
of consecutive sentences was well within its discretion under 18
U.S.C. § 3584(a). Because there was no error, we need not
determine whether the error was plain. A review of the record
reveals that the district court did not commit any other
sentencing errors. Therefore, we hold that the district court
imposed a reasonable sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire
record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. Consequently,
we deny Mondell’s motion for an extension of time in which to
file a pro se supplemental brief. This court requires that
counsel inform Mondell, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
4
Mondell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Mondell.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
