US v. Quinton Stevenson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cr-00846-JMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000030999].. [16-4496]

Appeal: 16-4496

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4496

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUINTON RASHARD STEVENSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (7:15-cr-00846-JMC-1)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Alan Lance Crick, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenville,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4496

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Quinton Rashard Stevenson appeals his within-Guidelines 40month

sentence

imposed

following

his

guilty

plea

to

being

a

felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).

On appeal, Stevenson’s counsel

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that he found no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning the length of Stevenson’s sentence.
a

supplemental

pro

se

brief

claiming

that

provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

Stevenson filed

his

plea

counsel

The Government has

not responded to the Anders brief or the supplemental pro se
brief.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

Because

the

record

does

not

conclusively

establish

ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that those claims
should
motion.

be

raised,

if

at

all,

in

a

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

See United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th

Cir. 2008).

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Stevenson, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review.
filed,

but

counsel

If Stevenson requests that a petition be
believes

that

such

a

petition

would

be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
2

Appeal: 16-4496

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/27/2017

withdraw from representation.

Pg: 3 of 3

Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Stevenson.
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