United States of America v. Sean Rondell Bundy, a/k/a Bun Rock, a/k/a Humps

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4464
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN RONDELL BUNDY, a/k/a Bun Rock, a/k/a Humps,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00226-WDQ-1)
Submitted: August 30, 2012 Decided: September 11, 2012
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Montemarano, MICHAEL D. MONTEMARANO, P.A., Elkridge,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Robert R. Harding, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sean Rondell Bundy appeals the district court’s orders
entering a money judgment against him and forfeiting certain
property as substitute assets of a narcotics offense of which he
was convicted and sentenced. Bundy also appeals the district
court’s denial, on jurisdictional grounds, of a motion to vacate
the forfeiture orders, which Bundy filed after his case was
already on appeal in this court. We have thoroughly reviewed
the record, and we affirm the district court in each respect.
Bundy attacks the forfeiture orders entered in his
criminal case on the ground that he was improperly denied a
hearing prior to their entry. Our review of the record,
however, persuades us that he is incorrect. Despite Bundy’s
claims otherwise, the versions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 in
effect when Bundy pled guilty and was sentenced direct that a
defendant must contest forfeiture in order to receive a hearing
on the matter. The record plainly demonstrates Bundy’s failure
to do so at any stage in the proceedings before the district
court. On these facts, we review Bundy’s assertions only for
plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732
(1993). We are convinced that the record fails to demonstrate

-- 2 of 4 --

3
any such error, notwithstanding Bundy’s arguments to the
contrary.* Id.
We likewise find no merit in Bundy’s arguments that
the district court erred in denying his motion to vacate the
forfeiture orders. Bundy filed the motion only after he had
already filed a notice of appeal expressing his intent to appeal
the forfeiture orders. As the district court properly observed,
the filing of a notice of appeal generally “‘confers
jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district
court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in
the appeal.’” Levin v. Alms & Assocs., Inc., 634 F.3d 260, 263
(4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co.,
459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). Bundy has identified no reason to
diverge from the general rule here, and we decline to do so.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We deny Bundy’s motion to file a pro se supplemental
brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
* To the extent the Government maintains that Bundy waived
review of the forfeiture orders by virtue of his failure to
contest them, we decline to address the argument, given that
Bundy’s assertions must fail even under plain error review.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --