US v. Monk

Filing 920070329

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4274 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE MONK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00407-FWB) Submitted: February 21, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Monk was convicted of wire fraud and money We laundering and was sentenced to eighty-seven months in prison. previously vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). At resentencing, the district court again imposed a sentence of eighty-seven months. Monk's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Monk has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Our review of the We affirm. discloses no error. The record sentence imposed falls below the applicable statutory maximums. See 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1956(a)(1)(A)(I) (2000). guideline range of 87-108 months was correctly Further, the calculated.* See Therefore, Monk's sentence was presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). The district court referred to both the guideline range and the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) in sentencing Monk. Based on With regard to guideline calculations, we note, contrary to Monk's assertion in his pro se brief, that the district court correctly made requisite factual determinations based on a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Further, Monk incorrectly argues that he should have been sentenced based only on conduct involved in the two counts of conviction, rather than based on all relevant conduct determined by a preponderance of the evidence. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) (2003). - 2 - * these considerations, the court found no reason to sentence Monk below the advisory guideline range, and imposed the sentence of eighty-seven months. We conclude that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a We deny the motion to copy of the motion was served on the client. dismiss and remand. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument set would forth not in aid the the contentions the court materials decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?