UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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