United States v. Rashon Hunter ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rashon Donte Hunter pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count each of conspiracy to 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) (2012), and was sentenced to 78
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
suggesting that Hunter’s counsel rendered constitutionally
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
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. Unless the
record conclusively establishes that counsel rendered
ineffective assistance, however, such claims are not cognizable
on direct appeal. United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359
(4th Cir. 2012). Because the record does not conclusively
2
establish that counsel 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. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Hunter, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Hunter requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. 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