Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    United States v. Adrian Adams, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a consecutive 27-month sentence for Adrian Adams upon revocation of his supervised release. While Adams argued the district court erred in running the sentence consecutively, the Court of Appeals reviewed only for plain error since the argument was not preserved below. The Court of Appeals found that even if there was plain error, Adams failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Adrian Adams, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    26 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a consecutive 27-month sentence for Adrian Adams upon revocation of his supervised release. While Adams argued the district court erred in running the sentence consecutively, the Court of Appeals reviewed only for plain error since the argument was not preserved below. The Court of Appeals found that even if there was plain error, Adams failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-12-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-4110

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a consecutive 27-month sentence for Adrian Adams upon revocation of his supervised release. While Adams argued the district court erred in running the sentence consecutively, the Court of Appeals reviewed only for plain error since the argument was not preserved below. The Court of Appeals found that even if there was plain error, Adams failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    26 views2 pages

    United States v. Adrian Adams, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a consecutive 27-month sentence for Adrian Adams upon revocation of his supervised release. While Adams argued the district court erred in running the sentence consecutively, the Court of Appeals reviewed only for plain error since the argument was not preserved below. The Court of Appeals found that even if there was plain error, Adams failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-4110

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ADRIAN MARQUESE ADAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (1:06-cr-00028-MR-DLH-1)

    Submitted:

    October 29, 2015

    Decided:

    December 4, 2015

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.


    Jill
    Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Adrian
    sentence

    Marquese

    imposed

    release.

    On

    Adams

    upon

    appeal,

    appeals

    revocation
    Adams

    the

    of

    argues

    consecutive

    his
    that

    term
    the

    of

    27-month

    supervised

    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)(1)(D)(ii) (2012).


    Because Adams did not preserve a challenge to the district
    courts decision to impose a consecutive sentence, we review
    this decision for plain error.
    F.3d 638, 641 (4th Cir. 2013).

    See United States v. Webb, 738


    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, 133 S. Ct.

    1121, 1126-27 (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 courts judgment.
    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like