Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04645/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04645-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Adams McCombs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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

Appeal: 07-4645 Doc: 37 Filed: 05/07/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4645 Doc: 37 Filed: 05/07/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

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.

Appeal: 07-4645 Doc: 37 Filed: 05/07/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

§ 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

Appeal: 07-4645 Doc: 37 Filed: 05/07/2008 Pg: 4 of 4