US v. Orlando Fuller, No. 13-6488 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6488 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ORLANDO MONTE FULLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00033-HEH-1) Submitted: July 19, 2013 Decided: July 26, 2013 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orlando Monte Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Orlando Monte Fuller appeals the district order denying his motion for concurrent sentences. Fuller asserts that because his Virginia court s On appeal, state robbery conviction and federal robbery conviction were related offenses, his federal sentence should have run concurrently to his state sentence. Fuller also raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as to counsel s failure to request a psychiatric evaluation. We affirm. In cases where, as here, a defendant is subject to multiple terms of imprisonment, the district court may order the terms to run consecutively or concurrently. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (2006); U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 5G1.3(c) (2003). Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). district court s judgment did sentence to concurrently run not with order his Because the Fuller s state federal sentence, we conclude that the Bureau of Prisons properly calculated Fuller s federal sentence sentence. We to begin likewise upon reject the completion Fuller s of assertion his that state his federal and state offenses were related as entirely contradicted by the record. Fuller s federal sentence on the instant offense and his previously-imposed but undischarged state court sentence 2 on a separate imprisonment offense imposed are at considered different multiple times that terms are to of run consecutively. Fuller raises his ineffective claim for the first time on appeal. assistance of counsel As this issue was not raised before the district court, we decline to consider it in the first instance. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
