United States v. Mundra , 81 F. App'x 458 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VIREN MUNDRA, a/k/a Virendra Mundra,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.
(CR-02-456)
Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: November 25, 2003
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Hunter Young, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Viren Mundra, a native of India, pled guilty by way of a
written plea agreement before a magistrate judge to one count of
criminal copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. §
506(a)(1) (2000), 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1) (2000). The district court
sentenced him to an eighteen-month term of imprisonment.
On appeal, Mundra’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are
no meritorious issues presented but raising questions as to whether
the magistrate judge fully complied with Fed. R. Crim P. 11 and
whether the district court correctly sentenced Mundra in accordance
with the sentencing guidelines. Mundra was notified by counsel of
his right to file a supplemental brief and has done so.
We find the magistrate judge fully complied with the
requirements of Rule 11. We further find that the district court
correctly adopted the unopposed presentence report and correctly
sentenced Mundra within the proper guidelines range. We reject the
claims raised in Mundra’s informal brief as unsupported and
meritless.
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance
with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Mundra’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
2
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