Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-05197/USCOURTS-ca4-08-05197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Blaine Mintz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD BLAINE MINTZ, a/k/a Edward Blain Mintz,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00040-LHT-1)

Submitted: April 12, 2010 Decided: April 29, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Gibson, LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS GIBSON, Asheville, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-5197 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/29/2010 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Edward Blaine 

Mintz pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base (Count 1), in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession of a firearm 

during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime (Count 3), in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). The district court 

granted the Government’s motion for downward departure based 

upon substantial assistance, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (2007), and sentenced Mintz to forty-one 

months of imprisonment on Count 1, the bottom of the advisory 

guidelines range.1 On appeal, Mintz’s counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating 

that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal

but questioning whether counsel in the district court provided 

ineffective assistance. Mintz was informed of his right to file 

a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm.2

 1 Mintz also received a sixty-month consecutive sentence on 

Count 3, which he does not challenge in this appeal.

2 We note that, on appeal, the Government has not relied on 

the waiver-of-appellate-rights provision in the plea agreement. 

Thus, we will conduct our review pursuant to Anders. United 

States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007); see

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). 

Appeal: 08-5197 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/29/2010 Pg: 2 of 4
3

Appellate counsel suggests that trial counsel provided 

ineffective assistance by failing to be present at Mintz’s 

interviews with law enforcement and by misinforming Mintz of the 

possible sentence he faced. This court “may address [claims of 

ineffective assistance] on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s 

ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record.” United 

States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). 

Because Mintz’s claims do not meet this high standard, we 

decline to review them on direct appeal.

Finally, we held Mintz’s case in abeyance for our 

decision in United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010), 

regarding the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of 

the chosen sentence.3

 3 We note that, when sentencing Mintz, the district court 

did not have the benefit of our most recent sentencing 

decisions.

 We have reviewed this issue for plain 

error. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 579-80. “To establish plain error, 

[Mintz] must show that an error (1) was made, (2) is plain 

(i.e., clear or obvious), and (3) affects substantial rights.” 

Id. at 577. If Mintz establishes these requirements, this court 

“may exercise its discretion to correct the error only if it 

seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation 

of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Even assuming that the district court in 

Appeal: 08-5197 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/29/2010 Pg: 3 of 4
4

this case committed error that was plain, Mintz has not 

demonstrated on appeal that the error “had a prejudicial effect 

on the sentence imposed.” Id. at 580.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

for any meritorious issues and have found none. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny counsel’s motion 

to withdraw at this time. This court requires that counsel 

inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the 

client 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 

the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 08-5197 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/29/2010 Pg: 4 of 4