US v. Sean Bundy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file [998857635-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00226-WDQ-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998935017].. [11-4464]

Appeal: 11-4464

Doc: 80

Filed: 09/11/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4464

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN RONDELL BUNDY, a/k/a Bun Rock, a/k/a Humps,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00226-WDQ-1)

Submitted:

August 30, 2012

Decided:

September 11, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Montemarano, MICHAEL D. MONTEMARANO, P.A., Elkridge,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Robert R. Harding, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4464

Doc: 80

Filed: 09/11/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Sean Rondell Bundy appeals the district court’s orders
entering a money judgment against him and forfeiting certain
property as substitute assets of a narcotics offense of which he
was convicted and sentenced.

Bundy also appeals the district

court’s denial, on jurisdictional grounds, of a motion to vacate
the

forfeiture

orders,

which

Bundy

already on appeal in this court.

filed

after

his

case

was

We have thoroughly reviewed

the record, and we affirm the district court in each respect.
Bundy

attacks

the

forfeiture

orders

entered

in

his

criminal case on the ground that he was improperly denied a
hearing

prior

to

their

entry.

Our

review

however, persuades us that he is incorrect.
claims

otherwise,

the

versions

of

Fed.

R.

of

the

record,

Despite Bundy’s
Crim.

P.

32.2

in

effect when Bundy pled guilty and was sentenced direct that a
defendant must contest forfeiture in order to receive a hearing
on the matter.

The record plainly demonstrates Bundy’s failure

to do so at any stage in the proceedings before the district
court.

On these facts, we review Bundy’s assertions only for

plain error.
(1993).

See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732

We are convinced that the record fails to demonstrate

2

Appeal: 11-4464

any

Doc: 80

such

Filed: 09/11/2012

error,

contrary. *

Pg: 3 of 4

notwithstanding

Bundy’s

arguments

to

the

Id.
We likewise find no merit in Bundy’s arguments that

the district court erred in denying his motion to vacate the
forfeiture orders.

Bundy filed the motion only after he had

already filed a notice of appeal expressing his intent to appeal
the forfeiture orders.
the

filing

of

a

As the district court properly observed,
notice

of

appeal

generally

“‘confers

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district
court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in
the appeal.’”

Levin v. Alms & Assocs., Inc., 634 F.3d 260, 263

(4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co.,
459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)).

Bundy has identified no reason to

diverge from the general rule here, and we decline to do so.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.

We deny Bundy’s motion to file a pro se supplemental

brief.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal

contentions

are

adequately

*

presented

in

the

materials

To the extent the Government maintains that Bundy waived
review of the forfeiture orders by virtue of his failure to
contest them, we decline to address the argument, given that
Bundy’s assertions must fail even under plain error review.

3

Appeal: 11-4464

before

Doc: 80

Filed: 09/11/2012

the

and

court

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4