US v. Charles McComb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00042-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998535656] [10-4528]

US v. Charles McComb

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4528

Document: 27

Date Filed: 03/02/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES ADAMS MCCOMBS, a/k/a IG, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00042-RJC-1)

Submitted:

January 31, 2011

Decided:

March 2, 2011

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erik M. Rosenwood, M. Aaron Lay, HAMILTON, MOON, STEPHENS, STEELE & MARTIN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4528

Document: 27

Date Filed: 03/02/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Charles Adams McCombs pled guilty to conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

(2006), and was found guilty of two violations of his supervised release. He was sentenced to 200 months of imprisonment each His was the

for the drug and firearm counts, to be served concurrently. fifty-one-month imposed to run sentence for violating for supervised release with

concurrently

thirty-nine

months

other two sentences and consecutively for twelve months, so that McCombs' total sentence of imprisonment was 212 months. McCombs On

has filed a notice of appeal from his § 922(g) conviction.

appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. on 738 (1967), but alleging raising that the there are no meritorious whether

claims

appeal

following

issue:

McCombs' sentence was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

We previously addressed counsel's instant issue in McCombs' prior appeal. See United States v. McCombs, 276 F. App'x 306 (4th Cir. 2008). The district court, however, failed to transmit the notice of appeal for McCombs' § 922(g) conviction, so that only McCombs' drug conspiracy and supervised release violations were technically before us. Thus, we now address McCombs' claims in the context of his conviction and sentence for the felon-in-possession of a firearm violation.

2

Case: 10-4528

Document: 27

Date Filed: 03/02/2011

Page: 3

We

do

not

find

that

the

district

court

abused

its

discretion in sentencing McCombs.

Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 49 (2007) (stating review standard); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (same). the record reveals no procedural or Our review of error in

substantive

McCombs' sentence, Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473, and demonstrates that the district court carefully considered the § 3553(a)

factors before imposing sentence.

McCombs' assertion that he

received an unwarranted disparate sentence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2006), fails in light of his extensive

criminal history and correct designation as a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2006), which gave him a higher sentence than some of his co-defendants. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no

meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm McCombs' This court of his

conviction and sentence for his § 922(g) violation. requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing,

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be

counsel

believes

that

petition

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with oral

a copy thereof was served on the client. 3

Case: 10-4528

Document: 27

Date Filed: 03/02/2011

Page: 4

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

4