US v. Rashon Hunter, No. 15-4768 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RASHON DONTE HUNTER, Defendant –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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 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. 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
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.
