United States of America v. Orlando Monte Fuller

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6488
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ORLANDO MONTE FULLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:04-cr-00033-HEH-1)
Submitted: July 19, 2013 Decided: July 26, 2013
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Orlando Monte Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Orlando Monte Fuller appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for concurrent sentences. On appeal,
Fuller asserts that because his Virginia state robbery
conviction and federal robbery conviction were related offenses,
his federal sentence should have run concurrently to his state
sentence. Fuller also raises an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim as to counsel’s failure to request a psychiatric
evaluation. We affirm.
In cases where, as here, a defendant is subject to
multiple terms of imprisonment, the district court may order the
terms to run consecutively or concurrently. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)
(2006); U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5G1.3(c)
(2003). “Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different
times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms
are to run concurrently.” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Because the
district court’s judgment did not order Fuller’s federal
sentence to run concurrently with his state sentence, we
conclude that the Bureau of Prisons properly calculated Fuller’s
federal sentence to begin upon the completion of his state
sentence. We likewise reject Fuller’s assertion that his
federal and state offenses were related as entirely contradicted
by the record. Fuller’s federal sentence on the instant offense
and his previously-imposed but undischarged state court sentence

-- 2 of 3 --

3
on a separate offense are considered multiple terms of
imprisonment imposed at different times that are to run
consecutively.
Fuller raises his ineffective assistance of counsel
claim for the first time on appeal. As this issue was not
raised before the district court, we decline to consider it in
the first instance. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --