UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
laundering and was sentenced to eighty-seven months in prison. We
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. We affirm.
Our review of the record discloses no error. The
sentence imposed falls below the applicable statutory maximums.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1956(a)(1)(A)(I) (2000). Further, the
guideline range of 87-108 months was correctly calculated.*
Therefore, Monk’s sentence was presumptively reasonable. See
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
copy of the motion was served on the client. We deny the motion to
dismiss and remand. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -