UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4496
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUINTON RASHARD STEVENSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (7:15-cr-00846-JMC-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quinton Rashard Stevenson appeals his within-Guidelines 40-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). On appeal, Stevenson’s counsel
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that he found no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning the length of Stevenson’s sentence. Stevenson filed
a supplemental pro se brief claiming that his plea counsel
provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government has
not responded to the Anders brief or the supplemental pro se
brief.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Because the record does not conclusively establish
ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that those claims
should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion. See United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th
Cir. 2008). We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Stevenson, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Stevenson 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
2
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Stevenson.
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