US v. Rashon Hunter
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00263-RJC-4. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [15-4768]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
RASHON DONTE HUNTER,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00263-RJC-4)
January 31, 2017
February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base,
intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine, in violation
months in prison.
Hunter’s counsel filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in
counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
deficient performance at sentencing.
Hunter has not filed a pro
se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to
do so, and the Government has declined to file a responsive
Counsel questions whether Hunter received constitutionally
ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing because defense
imposed to run concurrent with any future sentence Hunter might
receive on then-pending unrelated state charges.
ineffective assistance, however, such claims are not cognizable
on direct appeal.
United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359
Pg: 3 of 3
sentencing, we decline to address this claim on direct appeal.
Thus, Hunter’s arguments are more appropriately raised, if at
all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
See United States v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2006).
no opinion as to the merits of Hunter’s ineffective assistance
of counsel claim.
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
requires that counsel inform Hunter, in writing, of the right to
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Hunter.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?