US v. Rashon Hunter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00263-RJC-4. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000015587]. [15-4768]

Appeal: 15-4768

Doc: 34

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4768

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
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)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4768

Doc: 34

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rashon
agreement

Donte

to

one

Hunter
count

pled

each

of

guilty

pursuant

conspiracy

to

to

a

plea

distribute

and

possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base,
in

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

§ 846

(2012),

and

possession

with

intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine, in violation
of

21

U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(C)

months in prison.

(2012),

and

was

sentenced

to

78

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
suggesting

that

Hunter’s

counsel

deficient performance at sentencing.

rendered

constitutionally

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
brief.

We affirm.

Counsel questions whether Hunter received constitutionally
ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing because defense
counsel

failed

to

request

that

Hunter’s

federal

sentence

be

imposed to run concurrent with any future sentence Hunter might
receive on then-pending unrelated state charges.
record

conclusively

establishes

that

Unless the

counsel

rendered

ineffective assistance, however, such claims are not cognizable
on direct appeal.
(4th

Cir.

2012).

United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359
Because

the
2

record

does

not

conclusively

Appeal: 15-4768

Doc: 34

establish

Filed: 02/02/2017

that

counsel

Pg: 3 of 3

rendered

ineffective

assistance

at

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).

We express

no opinion as to the merits of Hunter’s ineffective assistance
of counsel claim.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We
court

requires that counsel inform Hunter, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

review.

If

Hunter

Court

of

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

be

for

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

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
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3