US v. Juan Martinez
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:12-cr-00037-FA-8 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999644000].. [14-4940]
Appeal: 14-4940
Doc: 29
Filed: 08/20/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4940
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
David A. Faber,
Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00037-FA-8)
Submitted:
August 18, 2015
Decided:
August 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W.H. Paramore, III, W.H. PARAMORE, III, P.C., Jacksonville,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-4940
Doc: 29
Filed: 08/20/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
Martinez
guilty
in
conspiracy
to
PER CURIAM:
Juan
Carlos
written
plea
agreement
robbery,
18
firearms
during
U.S.C.
pled
to
§ 1951
and
in
(2012),
relation
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) (2012).
to
and
a
accordance
commit
using
crime
Hobbs
and
of
with
a
Act
carrying
violence,
18
He was sentenced to 24 months
for the conspiracy and 120 months, consecutive, for the firearm
offense.
Martinez now appeals.
His attorney has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising
one
issue
but
grounds for appeal.
pro
se
stating
that
there
are
no
meritorious
Martinez was advised of his right to file a
supplemental
brief
but
has
not
filed
such
a
brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Our review of the transcript of Martinez’s Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing discloses that the district court fully complied with
the Rule, the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered,
and there was a factual basis for the plea.
We accordingly
affirm Martinez’s convictions.
We
review
a
sentence
abuse-of-discretion standard.
38, 46, 51 (2007).
for
reasonableness,
applying
an
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
This review requires consideration of both
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Id. at 51.
We first assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors
2
Appeal: 14-4940
Doc: 29
Filed: 08/20/2015
Pg: 3 of 4
set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments
presented
by
the
parties,
selected sentence.
and
sufficiently
explained
the
Id. at 49-51; see United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010).
If there is no procedural
error, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether
the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that
the
sentence
§ 3553(a).”
.
.
.
satisfied
the
standards
set
forth
in
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010).
After thorough consideration of the record, including the
presentence investigation report and the sentencing transcript,
we
conclude
that
Martinez’s
substantively reasonable.
the
sentence,
the
court
sentence
is
procedurally
and
With respect to the explanation of
stated
that
it
denied
a
requested
variance because it had granted the Government’s motion for a
departure
based
on
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
§ 5K1.1
(2014), and did not believe that the circumstances warranted a
lower sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore
affirm
Martinez’s
convictions
and
sentence.
We
This
court requires counsel, in writing, to inform Martinez of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
Appeal: 14-4940
Doc: 29
further review.
Filed: 08/20/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
If Martinez requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then
counsel
representation.
may
move
in
this
court
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the
motion was served on Martinez.
We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?