UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4666
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JEREMY LEE BAILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00328-WO-1)
Submitted: March 11, 2013 Decided: April 18, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Bailey pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to possession of child pornography in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (2006). Because the commission of this
offense constituted a violation of the terms of the supervised
release imposed against Bailey for a previous conviction, his
supervised release was revoked. The district court imposed a
sixty-month term of imprisonment on the child pornography
offense, and a consecutive sixteen month sentence on the
revocation of supervised release for the prior conviction. On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district court abused its discretion by running the child
pornography and supervised release violation sentences
consecutively. Although informed of his right to do so, Bailey
did not file a supplemental pro se brief. Finding no error, we
affirm.
As to the issue raised by counsel, U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5G1.3 (2011) controls the district
court’s imposition of a sentence on a defendant who is subject
to an undischarged term of imprisonment. Subsection (c), which
is designated as a policy statement, provides that “[i]n any
other case involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, the
2
sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run
concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the
prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable
punishment for the instant offense.” USSG § 5G1.3(c). A
district court’s discretion in imposing consecutive or
concurrent sentences is bounded only by the relevant factors
that the current version of § 5G1.3(c) directs it to consider.
United States v. Mosley, 200 F.3d 218, 224-25 (4th Cir. 1999).
Further, in situations where the offense occurred while the
defendant was on supervised release, the Guidelines recommend
that the sentences for the offense and the supervised release
violation run consecutively. USSG § 5G1.3(c), cmt. n.3(C). In
this case, the district court chose to impose consecutive
sentences after concluding that the criminal activity giving
rise to each sentence was separate and ought to be addressed
separately. In light of the commentary to § 5G1.3(c), we hold
that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Bailey’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Bailey, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Bailey requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
3
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 Bailey.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4