United States v. Monge ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE MONGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:07-cr-01365-HMH-7)
Submitted: August 17, 2009 Decided: August 28, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew B. Moorman, BANNISTER & WYATT, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant
United States Attorney, William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Monge appeals from his conviction and 121-month
sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to a
methamphetamine conspiracy. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether Monge’s sentence was cruel and unusual punishment.
Although informed of his right to do so, Monge has not filed a
pro se supplemental brief. After a thorough review of the
record under Anders, we affirm.
Monge was sentenced at the low end of his advisory
Guidelines range and received a sentence one month longer than
the applicable statutory minimum. On appeal, he asserts that
his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment, given his minimal
prior record and his minor role in the offense. However, “[t]he
Supreme Court has never held that a sentence to a specific term
of years, even if it might turn out to be more than the
reasonable life expectancy of the defendant, constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment.” United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477,
495 (4th Cir. 2006). Though “[s]evere, mandatory penalties may
be cruel, . . . they are not unusual in the constitutional
sense.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994 (1991).
Accordingly, Monge’s assertion is without merit.
2
Our independent review of the record reveals no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Monge’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform Monge, 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