US v. Juan Martinez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00263-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998851559].. [11-4810]

Appeal: 11-4810

Doc: 35

Filed: 05/10/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4810

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ,
Mejia-Orduna,

a/k/a

Chico,

a/k/a

Christian

E.

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00263-FL-1)

Submitted:

April 23, 2012

Decided:

May 10, 2012

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4810

Doc: 35

Filed: 05/10/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Juan Carlos Martinez pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams
or

more

of

methamphetamine,

quantity of cocaine.
He now appeals.

a

quantity

of

marijuana,

and

a

He was sentenced to 262 months in prison.

Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but
stating

that

there

are

no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal.

Martinez was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not filed such a brief.

We affirm.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether defense
counsel

was

ineffective

for

failing

to

ensure

that

Martinez

fully understood the nature and consequences of his plea.
allow

for

ordinarily

adequate
must

development

bring

a

claim

of
of

the

record,

ineffective

a

To

defendant

assistance

of

counsel in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion unless
it conclusively appears on the face of the record that counsel’s
representation was constitutionally infirm.

United States v.

Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).
Here, no such error is apparent from the record.

We

note that Martinez, who was provided with an interpreter at his
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, was twenty-one at the time of the
hearing and had an eleventh-grade education.

He informed the

court that he understood the charges against him, the rights he
2

Appeal: 11-4810

Doc: 35

Filed: 05/10/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

waived by pleading guilty, and the penalties that he faced.
expressed

satisfaction

with

his

attorney’s

He

services.

Additionally, Martinez admitted his guilt and stated that his
guilty plea was not the result of force, threats, or promises
other than those contained in the plea agreement.

A defendant’s

representations at the plea colloquy “carry a strong presumption
of verity.”

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 64 (1977).

In

light of Martinez’s representations at the hearing, we reject
his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
accordingly affirm.

We

This court requires counsel to inform his

client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review.

If the client requests

that

believes

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel

that

such

a

petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy of the motion was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3