UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
for the drug and firearm counts, to be served concurrently. His
fifty-one-month sentence for violating supervised release was
imposed to run concurrently for thirty-nine months with the
other two sentences and consecutively for twelve months, so that
McCombs’ total sentence of imprisonment was 212 months. McCombs
has filed a notice of appeal from his § 922(g) conviction. 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. 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
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). 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. 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’
conviction and sentence for his § 922(g) violation. 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
3
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