US v. James Mondell, No. 10-4451 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES PATRICK MONDELL, Defendant Appellant.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-01078HMH-1; 0:05-cr-00174-HMH-2; 2:04-cr-00109-HMH-2) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and January 14, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James month, and following Mondell appeals thirty-three his guilty the month plea forty month, consecutive to one count twenty-four sentences of bank imposed 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 with in accordance 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 States v. Mondell s Lynn, sentence 592 F.3d for 572, plain error. 576-77 See United (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. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). United Where, as here, a defendant is sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment at the same time, the district 3 court may order that the 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 § 3553(a) extensive factors, criminal The court explicitly considered specifically history, his emphasizing exceedingly history category, and the need for deterrence. high Mondell s criminal 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 not that the sentencing errors. district court did commit any other 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. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. We 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 4 for further review. If 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 before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
