US v. Javar Minott, No. 13-4907 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4907 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAVAR MINOTT, a/k/a Jay Mentos, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00224-RJC-DSC-1) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: July 28, 2014 Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony E. Rollman, Brafford, Steven Charlotte, North States Attorney, Enka, North Carolina, for Appellant. William A. R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Javar Minott pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A) (2012), conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)(2012), and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking (2012). crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) The district court sentenced Minott to one hundred and eighty months of imprisonment. On appeal, Minott s counsel has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but assistance of adequately Minott s raising whether counsel explain final the Minott because plea sentence. counsel agreement Minott received did ineffective allegedly or not did accurately file a not predict pro se supplemental brief and the Government declined to file a reply brief. We affirm. Claims of ineffective assistance generally not cognizable on direct appeal. of counsel are United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008); see United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Instead, to allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must ordinarily bring his claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. F.3d at 295. King, 119 However, we may entertain such claims on direct 2 appeal if it conclusively appears from the record that defense counsel did not provide effective representation. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (setting forth standard). Because neither of Minott s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims conclusively appears on the record, we decline to address them in this appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Minott, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Minott 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 Minott. 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.
