US v. Richard Long

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00108-WO-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999103853].. [12-4971]

Appeal: 12-4971

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/08/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD DARNELL LONG,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00108-WO-3)

Submitted:

May 3, 2013

Decided:

May 8, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael A.
DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4971

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/08/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Richard

Darnell

Long

appeals

the

198-month

downward

variant sentence imposed upon him after the disposition of his
initial direct appeal, in which we affirmed his conviction but
vacated his sentence and remanded his case to the district court
to permit resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,
Pub. L. No. 111–220, 124 Stat. 2372 (“FSA”).

Long’s counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), in which he states that he can identify no meritorious
issues

for

appeal,

but

questions

whether

Long

was

properly

designated a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1 (2010).

We affirm.

As counsel recognizes, there is no question that Long
was properly designated a career offender, given that his two
prior

felony

assault

with

a

deadly

separated by an intervening arrest.
convictions

are

counted

separately

weapon

convictions

were

In other words, these two
even

though

they

were

consolidated for sentencing because Long was arrested for the
first offense prior to committing the second offense.

See USSG

§ 4A1.2(a)(2), 4B1.2(c)(2); United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 169,
171 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 459
(4th Cir. 2006).
Long has filed a pro se brief in which he asks us to
revisit the drug amounts alleged in his indictment, to strike
2

Appeal: 12-4971

the

Doc: 23

21

Filed: 05/08/2013

U.S.C.

§ 851

(2006)

Pg: 3 of 3

enhancement

that

he

received,

to

reduce his sentence yet further under the FSA, and to upend the
ten-year term of supervised release that he received.

We have

reviewed each of Long’s assertions and conclude that they are
without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

This court requires that counsel inform Long, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Long requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

and

materials

legal
before

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Long.
facts

this

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3