UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4800
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM MARTIN MCNULTY, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00445-WLO)
Submitted: April 22, 2008 Decided: May 1, 2008
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Martin McNulty pled guilty to two counts of mail
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 (2000), and one
count of securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a), 77x
(2000). He was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment on each count
to run concurrently, and ordered to pay $2,973,054.79 in
restitution. McNulty appeals his sentence. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district
court abused its discretion by imposing restitution when settlement
had been reached with one of the victims in civil court. McNulty
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not done so. The Government elected not to file a brief.
A district court's order of restitution is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Henoud, 81 F.3d 484, 487
(4th Cir. 1996). McNulty argued at sentencing that he had
previously entered into a consent judgment to pay $700,000 in a
civil suit in state court brought by victim Jan Blethen stemming
from “a number of agreements and investments.” He argued the
$135,453.14 restitution the Government requested the district court
order him to pay Blethen was part of those same agreements and
investments and was thus encompassed by the consent judgment.
- 2 -
However, McNulty presented no evidence that he in fact compensated
Blethen for her full loss and thus failed to meet his burden of
proving that he compensated the victim so as to preclude
restitution. See United States v. Karam, 201 F.3d 320, 327 (4th
Cir. 2000). Therefore, we find the district court did not abuse
its discretion in ordering McNulty to pay restitution to Blethen.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -