Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 121 views

    United States v. Mundra, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Viren Mundra pled guilty to one count of criminal copyright infringement. His attorney filed an Anders brief asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal. The court found that the magistrate judge complied with Rule 11 requirements and that the district court correctly sentenced Mundra within the sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed both Mundra's conviction and sentence, finding no meritorious issues for appeal based on its examination of the record.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Mundra, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    121 views3 pages
    Viren Mundra pled guilty to one count of criminal copyright infringement. His attorney filed an Anders brief asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal. The court found that the magistrate judge complied with Rule 11 requirements and that the district court correctly sentenced Mundra within the sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed both Mundra's conviction and sentence, finding no meritorious issues for appeal based on its examination of the record.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-11-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-4164

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Viren Mundra pled guilty to one count of criminal copyright infringement. His attorney filed an Anders brief asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal. The court found that the magistrate judge complied with Rule 11 requirements and that the district court correctly sentenced Mundra within the sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed both Mundra's conviction and sentence, finding no meritorious issues for appeal based on its examination of the record.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    121 views3 pages

    United States v. Mundra, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Viren Mundra pled guilty to one count of criminal copyright infringement. His attorney filed an Anders brief asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal. The court found that the magistrate judge complied with Rule 11 requirements and that the district court correctly sentenced Mundra within the sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed both Mundra's conviction and sentence, finding no meritorious issues for appeal based on its examination of the record.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    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, Mundras 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

    requirements of Rule 11.

    judge

    fully

    complied

    with

    the

    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

    Mundras

    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.
    This

    Accordingly, we affirm Mundras conviction and sentence.


    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.

    Counsels 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

    You might also like