UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 weapon convictions were
separated by an intervening arrest. In other words, these two
convictions are counted separately 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
the 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006) 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Long. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3