US v. Sajjad Mahar, No. 09-5005 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5005 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SAJJAD NAZAR MAHAR, a/k/a Ali Mahar, a/k/a Ali Maher, a/k/a Alli Maher, a/k/a Alli Mahar, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08cr-00281-RWT-1) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 11, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F.X. Becker, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sajjad Nazar Mahar appeals the district court s judgment entered pursuant to his guilty plea to seventeen counts of mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. Counsel for Mahar has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he reviews the proceedings but asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Mahar has filed a pro se supplemental brief contending that his guilty plea was counsel. involuntary involuntary. 11 alleging ineffective assistance of Finding no error, we affirm. Mahar P. and first asserts that his guilty plea was We have thoroughly examined Mahar s Fed. R. Civ. hearing and conclude based on his statements hearing that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. compelling evidence statements made established. to during the a contrary, Rule 11 the colloquy truth is of at the Absent sworn conclusively United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 221-22 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (holding that a defendant s declaration at the Rule 11 hearing carr[ies] a strong presumption of verity ); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119 (4th Cir. 1991) (concluding that a defendant s statement at a Rule 11 hearing that he was neither coerced nor threatened 2 was strong evidence of the voluntariness of his plea ). We thus find that Mahar s claims in this regard are without merit. Mahar next asserts counsel were ineffective. that both trial and appellate Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally are not cognizable on direct appeal. States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). United Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must bring his claims in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. Id. An exception exists where the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). States v. Because the record in this case does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that Mahar s claims are not cognizable in this appeal. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the meritorious issues judgment the of requirements for appeal. district court. counsel s motion to withdraw. of Anders, Accordingly, At this and we we find affirm juncture, we no the deny This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court at that time for 3 leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.