UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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).∗

 ∗ 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. 

 For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm.
3

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 
4

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