US v. Charles McComb, No. 10-4528 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4528 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES ADAMS MCCOMBS, a/k/a IG, Defendant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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 was imposed to sentence run for concurrently violating for supervised thirty-nine release 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. claims on 738 (1967), appeal alleging that raising the but there are following no meritorious issue: whether McCombs sentence was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 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. 2 We do not find that the district discretion in sentencing McCombs. court abused its 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). the record reveals no procedural or Our review of substantive error in McCombs sentence, Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473, and demonstrates that the district court carefully factors before imposing sentence. considered the § 3553(a) 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 meritorious issues for appeal. of Anders, and that counsel inform no Accordingly, we affirm McCombs conviction and sentence for his § 922(g) violation. requires find his client, in This court writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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. 3 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 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
