US v. Patricio Martinez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00073-WO-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998571045].. [09-5232]

Case: 09-5232

Document: 40

Date Filed: 04/19/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5232

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PATRICIO HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00073-WO-2)

Submitted:

March 23, 2011

Decided:

April 19, 2011

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton B. Shoaf, Jr., Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 09-5232

Document: 40

Date Filed: 04/19/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Patricio

Hernandez

Martinez

appeals

the

sixty-five-

month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy
to distribute 500 or more grams of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006).

Martinez’s counsel filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there

are

whether

no

the

meritorious
evidence

conviction.

grounds

was

Martinez

for

appeal

sufficient

filed

a

pro

to
se

but

sustain

questioning
Martinez’s

supplemental

brief. *

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether
the evidence was sufficient for the district court to accept
Martinez’s
pleading

guilty
guilty,

sufficiency

of

plea.

Upon

Martinez

the

review,

waived

evidence

his

underlying

we
right
his

conclude
to

that

contest

conviction.

by
the
See

United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993) (“[A]
guilty

plea

constitutes

a

waiver

of

all

nonjurisdictional

defects, including the right to contest the factual merits of
the charges.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

*

In his pro se brief, Martinez asserts that the indictment
was insufficient to confer jurisdiction, that the district court
erred in imposing the sentence, and that the Government breached
the plea agreement. We have carefully reviewed these claims and
conclude that they lack merit.

2

Case: 09-5232

Document: 40

Date Filed: 04/19/2011

Page: 3

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Martinez, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If Martinez requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel

believes

that

counsel

may

in

move

representation.

such
this

a

petition

court

for

would

leave

to

be

frivolous,

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Martinez.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3