US v. Jeremy Martinez-Perez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:08-cr-01074-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998564076].. [10-4728]

Case: 10-4728

Document: 23

Date Filed: 04/08/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JEREMY MARTINEZ-PEREZ,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-01074-TLW-1)

Submitted:

March 22, 2011

Decided:

April 8, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

T. Kirk Truslow, TRUSLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, North Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-4728

Document: 23

Date Filed: 04/08/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Martinez-Perez was charged by a federal grand
jury with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006).

Martinez-Perez pleaded guilty, and the

district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment, the
mandatory
appeal.

statutory

minimum.

Martinez-Perez

noted

a

timely

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Martinez-Perez argues that the facts on the

record

do

not

support

the

district

court’s

conclusion

that

Martinez-Perez was a leader, supervisor, or manager within the
meaning of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1(c)
(2009).

He asserts that, because the district court erroneously

applied the leadership enhancement, it also improperly failed to
sentence him in accordance with the safety valve provisions of
USSG § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2006).
The district court’s determination that a sentencing
enhancement is warranted is a factual determination reviewed for
clear error.
(4th Cir.),
reverse

United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147-48
cert.

only

if

denied,
we

are

130

S.

left

Ct.

with

657

the

(2009).

We

will

“definite

and

firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

United States v.

Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 337 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
2

Case: 10-4728

Document: 23

Date Filed: 04/08/2011

Page: 3

A defendant qualifies for a two-level enhancement if
he was an “organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in any
criminal activity that did not involve five or more participants
and

was

not

otherwise

distinguishing

a

extensive.

leadership

or

USSG

§ 3B1.1(c).

organization

role

Factors

from

lesser

roles include:
the exercise of decision making authority, the nature
of participation in the commission of the offense, the
recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a
larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of
participation in planning or organizing the offense,
the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the
degree of control and authority exercised over others.
USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4; United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179,
184 (4th Cir. 2009).

The leadership enhancement “is appropriate

where the evidence demonstrates that the defendant controlled
the

activities

responsibility.”

of

other
United

participants
States

v.

or

exercised

Slade,

631

management

F.3d

(4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

185,

190

The facts

establishing the enhancement must be by a preponderance of the
evidence.

Harvey, 532 F.3d at 337.
We find that the district court did not clearly err in

concluding that the Government met this burden.

Martinez-Perez

obtained cocaine in Texas for sale in South Carolina.

He used

multiple individuals and bank accounts to transfer the proceeds
back to Texas.

The district court permissibly concluded that in

doing so, Martinez-Perez did more than simply sell cocaine to
3

Case: 10-4728

local

suppliers

proceeds

of

meet

the

—

those

Moreover, because
applying

Document: 23

the

he

actively

sales
the

from

managed
South

district

leadership

requirements

Date Filed: 04/08/2011

court

enhancement,
for

the

the

Carolina
did

not

Page: 4

movement
back

to

clearly

Martinez-Perez

safety

of

valve.

the

Texas.
err

does
See

in
not

USSG

§ 5C1.2(a)(4).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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

4