US v. Rashard Boyd, No. 13-4044 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RASHARD DEAN BOYD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00277-MOC-DCK-1) Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony E. Rollman, Enka, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rashard Dean Boyd pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count each of conspiracy to commit robbery by threat of force or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (West Supp. 2013), and was sentenced to 235 months in prison. Boyd 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 questioning whether counsel. Boyd despite receiving Boyd has not received filed notice of a his ineffective pro se right assistance supplemental to do so, Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Counsel questions whether constitutionally ineffective assistance. of brief, and the We affirm. counsel rendered As counsel recognizes, however, in the absence of conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record, such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 376 (2012). Rather, [c]laims of normally raised before § 2255[.] establish Id. that ineffective the Because counsel assistance district the record rendered 2 court does ineffective of via not counsel 28 are U.S.C. conclusively assistance, we decline to address this claim on direct appeal. Although Boyd s claim is premature, he may, of course, reassert it in a § 2255 habeas motion. 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 Boyd, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Boyd requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this and materials legal before for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Boyd. facts court We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
