US v. Adrian Adams, No. 15-4110 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4110 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ADRIAN MARQUESE ADAMS, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court’s 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 court’s 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 2

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.