United States v. McCombs ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4645
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES ADAMS MCCOMBS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-4666
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES ADAMS MCCOMBS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals 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-00028; 3:05-cr-00103-RJC)
Submitted: April 29, 2008 Decided: May 7, 2008
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Erik M. Rosenwood, HAMILTON, MOON, STEPHENS, STEELE & MARTIN, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Karen S. Marston, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 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, and two violations of his
supervised release. He was sentenced to 200 months of imprisonment
each on the drug and firearm counts, to be served concurrently.
His fifty-one-month sentence for violating supervised release was
imposed to run consecutively for twelve months, so that his total
sentence of imprisonment is 212 months. On appeal, counsel has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising
the following issue: whether McCombs’ sentence was greater than
necessary under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We do not find that the district court abused its
discretion in sentencing McCombs. See Gall v. United States, 128
S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (stating review standard); United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (same). Our review of
the record reveals no procedural or substantive error in McCombs’
sentence, Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473, and demonstrates that the
district court carefully considered the § 3553(a) factors before
imposing sentence. United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370
(4th Cir. 2006). McCombs’ assertion that he received an
unwarranted disparate sentence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
- 3 -
§ 3553(a)(6) (2000), 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. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the
client. We dispense with oral 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 -