Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian Marquese ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-04
Citations: 624 F. App'x 84
Docket Number: No. 15-4110
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian Marqúese ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian Marqúese ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-4110.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 29, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 4, 2015.
Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, NC, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, NC, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Marqúese Adams appeals the consecutive 27-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his term of supervised release. On appeal, Adams argues that the district court committed reversible error in running the sentence consecutive to any previously or subsequently imposed sentence of imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(D)(ii) (2012).
Because Adams did not preserve a challenge to the district court's decision to impose a consecutive sentence, we review this decision for plain error. See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 641 (4th Cir.2013). Even if we were to conclude that the court committed error and that the error was plain, Adams has not met his burden to establish that the error affected his substantial rights. See Henderson v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 1126-27, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013) (defining plain error test); United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 843 (4th Cir.2005) (describing sentencing error that affects substantial rights).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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.