United States v. Mongold , 259 F. App'x 539 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-4411
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DAWSON WILLIAM MONGOLD,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
    District Judge. (3:04-cr-00009-WCB)
    Submitted:   November 21, 2007         Decided:     December 11, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Arthur H. Baker, III, LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR H. BAKER, III,
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United
    States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dawson William Mongold pled guilty pursuant to a plea
    agreement to three counts of distribution of cocaine base, in
    violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007).            As
    part of his plea, he stipulated he was responsible for at least 500
    grams of cocaine base or crack cocaine. Mongold’s guidelines range
    of imprisonment was based upon his stipulation and his acceptance
    of responsibility. He was sentenced to 188 months’ imprisonment or
    the low end of the then mandatory sentencing guidelines. Mongold’s
    counsel did not file an appeal.             Subsequently, Mongold filed a
    motion   under   28   U.S.C.   §   2255   (2000),   claiming   counsel   was
    ineffective for not filing a notice of appeal.         The district court
    agreed with Mongold and granted his motion.             The court held a
    resentencing for the purpose of reentering the judgment so Mongold
    can file a timely notice of appeal.            At the hearing, the court
    ordered the same sentence and declined to consider Mongold’s other
    challenges to his original sentence or to consider sentencing
    Mongold under the rules announced in United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005).      On appeal, Mongold claims the court erred by not
    having a de novo sentencing proceeding. Mongold further claims the
    court erred by not sentencing him pursuant to the rules announced
    in Booker.    Finding no error, we affirm.
    The form of relief awarded by the district court in a
    successful § 2255 proceeding is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
    - 2 -
    United States v. Hadden, 
    475 F.3d 652
    , 667 (4th Cir. 2007).
    District courts are given a “broad and flexible power . . .     to
    fashion an appropriate remedy.” United States v. Hillary, 
    106 F.3d 1170
    , 1171 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    When a movant in a § 2255 proceeding is successful in his claim
    that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel
    did not file a requested notice of appeal, “the ‘standard practice
    among federal courts’ in this situation: vacatur of the sentence
    and summary imposition of a new sentencing judgment identical in
    all respects to the earlier one except for the date of entry.”
    United States v. Torres-Otero, 
    232 F.3d 24
    , 29 (1st Cir. 2000)
    (quoting Pratt v. United States, 
    129 F.3d 54
    , 62 (1st Cir. 1997)).
    See also United States v. Shedrick, 
    493 F.3d 292
    , 303 (3d Cir.
    2007) (the “usual course in cases of this nature:       vacate and
    remand for re-entry of the initial sentence so that there can be a
    timely appeal.”); United States v. Snitz, 
    342 F.3d 1154
    , 1159 (10th
    Cir. 2003) (directing “district court to vacate and reenter its
    judgment of conviction and sentence to allow defendant to file a
    timely appeal”); United States v. West, 
    240 F.3d 456
    , 459 (5th Cir.
    2001) (“When leave to file an out-of-time appeal is granted, the
    district court should reinstate the criminal judgment to trigger
    the running of a new Rule 4(b) appeal period.”) (emphasis in
    original);   United States v. Prado, 
    204 F.3d 843
    , 845 (8th Cir.
    2000).   A defendant is not entitled to de novo resentencing when
    - 3 -
    the “defendant has been unconstitutionally deprived of appellate
    review due to ineffective assistance of counsel.”     
    Prado, 204 F.3d at 845
    . see also United States v. Phillips, 
    225 F.3d 1198
    , 1200-01
    (11th Cir. 2000) (setting forth procedure for reimposing judgment
    when right to appeal has been denied); cf. United States v. Peak,
    
    992 F.2d 39
    , 42 (4th Cir. 1993) (in § 2255 appeal where criminal
    defense attorney failed to file a notice of appeal though requested
    to do so, court vacated and instructed district court      “to vacate
    Peak’s judgment of conviction and enter a new judgment from which
    an appeal can be taken.”).
    We find the district court did not abuse its discretion
    by re-entering the judgment with the purpose of allowing Mongold to
    file a timely notice of appeal without considering Mongold’s other
    attacks on his sentence.
    We further find Mongold’s sentence does not violate the
    rules announced in Booker.   In Booker, the Supreme Court held that
    the mandatory manner in which the federal sentencing guidelines
    required courts to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts
    found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence violated the
    Sixth 
    Amendment. 125 S. Ct. at 746
    , 750 (Stevens, J., opinion of
    the Court).   This court has identified two types of Booker error:
    a violation of the Sixth Amendment, and a failure to treat the
    sentencing guidelines as advisory.       United States v. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d 540
    , 552 (4th Cir. 2005).   A Sixth Amendment error occurs when
    - 4 -
    the district court imposes a sentence greater than the maximum
    permitted based on facts found by a jury or admitted by the
    defendant.        
    Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756
    .            While the mandatory
    application of the guidelines constitutes plain error, United
    States v. White, 
    405 F.3d 208
    , 217 (4th Cir. 2005), a defendant who
    seeks re-sentencing on this ground must show actual prejudice,
    i.e., a “nonspeculative basis for concluding that the treatment of
    the   guidelines     as   mandatory    ‘affect[ed]     the   district     court’s
    selection    of    the    sentence    imposed.’”       
    Id. at 223 (quoting
    Williams v. United States, 
    503 U.S. 193
    , 203 (1992)).
    For purposes of determining Booker error, this court
    considers the guideline range based on the facts the defendant
    admitted before any adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
    United States v. Evans, 
    416 F.3d 298
    , 300 n.4 (4th Cir. 2005).
    Mongold’s guidelines range of imprisonment was determined solely on
    his agreement that he was responsible for at least 500 grams of
    cocaine. Mongold’s unenhanced offense level, without consideration
    for acceptance of responsibility, was thirty-six.                  With criminal
    history category IV, the guideline range would have been 262 to 327
    months’ imprisonment. Mongold’s sentence was lower than that range
    as    a   result    of    him   receiving     credit    for       acceptance   of
    responsibility.          Thus, Mongold cannot show error.                Moreover,
    nothing in the current record on appeal suggests the district court
    would have given him a lower sentence if the guidelines were not
    - 5 -
    mandatory.    Therefore, Mongold has not established error that
    warrants re-sentencing under 
    White, 405 F.3d at 223
    .
    Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.          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
    - 6 -