US v. Adam Jordan, III, No. 13-4193 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4193 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ADAM JOE LOUIS JORDAN, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00011-RLV-DSC-1) Submitted: October 30, 2013 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 20, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina; Dana Owen Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adam following robbery, his in Joe Louis guilty plea violation Jordan, of to 18 III, appeals conspiracy to U.S.C. § 1951 his conviction commit Hobbs (2006); using Act or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) & 2 (2006); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Jordan s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Jordan was denied effective assistance of counsel in the district court. Jordan was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one. We affirm. Jordan s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes that counsel provided ineffective assistance. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir 2008). allow for adequate development of the record, a To defendant ordinarily should bring an ineffective assistance claim in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). conclude that the record on appeal 2 does not Because we conclusively establish that Jordan s counsel was ineffective, we decline to consider this issue on direct appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Jordan, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jordan requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jordan. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3