US v. Adrian Adam

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00028-MR-DLH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999712404].. [15-4110]

Appeal: 15-4110

Doc: 39

Filed: 12/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN MARQUESE ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00028-MR-DLH-1)

Submitted:

October 29, 2015

Decided:

December 4, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill
Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4110

Doc: 39

Filed: 12/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Adrian
sentence

Marquese

imposed

release.

On

Adams

upon

appeal,

appeals

revocation
Adams

the

of

argues

consecutive

his
that

term
the

of

27-month

supervised

district

court

committed reversible error in running the sentence consecutive
to

any

previously

or

subsequently

imposed

sentence

of

imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (2012).
Because Adams did not preserve a challenge to the district
court’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence, we review
this decision for plain error.
F.3d 638, 641 (4th Cir. 2013).

See United States v. Webb, 738
Even if we were to conclude that

the court committed error and that the error was plain, Adams
has not met his burden to establish that the error affected his
substantial rights.

See Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct.

1121, 1126-27 (2013) (defining plain error test); United States
v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 843 (4th Cir. 2005) (describing
sentencing error that affects substantial rights).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2