UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4258
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TRON ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CR-03-1140)
Submitted: October 24, 2005 Decided: November 14, 2005
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United
States Attorney, Tara L. McGregor, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tron Anderson appeals from the judgment of the district
court convicting him of possession of a firearm as a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a), and 924(e), and
sentencing him to 188 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Anderson claims on appeal that the district court
unreasonably imposed his federal term of incarceration to run
consecutive to, rather than concurrent with, a previously imposed
state sentence. Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(a)
(2003), a court is directed to apply a consecutive term of
imprisonment for any crime that occurs while a defendant is serving
an existing term of imprisonment. See USSG § 5G1.3(a). Anderson
does not dispute that he was serving an existing term of
imprisonment. In fact, Anderson’s possession of the firearm
occurred when he was attempting to escape from state custody, where
he was incarcerated for multiple drug charges.
Instead, Anderson argues that the record is unclear as to
whether the district court recognized that it had the authority to
ignore the mandatory nature of § 5G1.3(a) and impose a concurrent
sentence, in light of the now-advisory nature of the sentencing
guidelines. He further contends that the district court made no
reference to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) when
determining his sentence.
- 2 -
Having reviewed the record, we find no error. The
district court was adequately informed of the discretion it had to
impose a concurrent sentence. Furthermore, the record reveals that
the district court was aware of the factors set forth in § 3553(a)
and that the sentence took these factors into account.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
- 3 -