US v. Victor Martinez-Lucio

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:09-cr-00787-HMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998466073] [10-4251]

US v. Victor Martinez-Lucio

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4251 Document: 30

Date Filed: 11/16/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4251 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VICTOR HUGO MARTINEZ-LUCIO, a/k/a Victor LNU, a/k/a Victor Martinez, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cr-00787-HMH-1) Submitted: October 21, 2010 Decided: November 16, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wallace H. Jordan, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4251 Document: 30

Date Filed: 11/16/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Victor Hugo Martinez-Lucio appeals from his conviction and fifty-seven month sentence following his guilty plea to

three counts of sale of a firearm to a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006).

Martinez-Lucio's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the

district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Martinez-Lucio's guilty plea. Martinez-Lucio, advised of his We

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, did not do so. affirm.

Because Martinez-Lucio did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is

reviewed for plain error. 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). complied with the guilty Rule

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d We conclude the district court fully 11 requirements During the in accepting hearing, in

Martinez-Lucio's

plea.

plea

compliance with Rule 11, the district court properly informed Martinez-Lucio of the rights he was forfeiting as a result of his plea and the nature of the charges and penalties he faced, found that Martinez-Lucio was competent and entering his plea voluntarily, and determined there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea. Therefore, the record establishes Martinez-Lucio 2

Case: 10-4251 Document: 30

Date Filed: 11/16/2010

Page: 3

knowingly and voluntarily entered into his guilty plea with a full understanding of the consequences and there was no error in the district court's acceptance of the plea. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This We court

requires that counsel inform Martinez-Lucio, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but If Martinez-Lucio requests that a petition be believes that such a petition would be

counsel

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with contentions the court are and

a copy thereof was served on Martinez-Lucio. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before

adequately

presented

materials

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

3