US v. Richard Long, No. 12-4971 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4971 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD DARNELL LONG, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 separated by an intervening arrest. convictions are counted separately weapon convictions were In other words, these two 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 2 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 representation. in and materials legal before court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Long. facts this We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
