UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Boyd received ineffective assistance of
counsel. Boyd 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 counsel rendered
constitutionally ineffective assistance. 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 ineffective assistance of counsel are
normally raised before the district court via 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255[.]” Id. Because the record does not conclusively
establish that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we
2
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. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This 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 this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Boyd. 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