US v. Todarian Martin
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00335-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [17-4251]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
TODARIAN DONDRELL MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:16-cr-00335-WO-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2017
Decided: October 23, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang,
Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Todarian Dondrell Martin appeals from his conviction and 84-month sentence
imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a
crime of violence, namely, carjacking. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). Martin’s
counsel submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether
Martin’s sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals enumerated
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). Martin has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging
his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
We review Martin’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks omitted). This review entails appellate consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). We presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d
212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court properly calculated the
advisory Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave
the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence not based on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently
explained the chosen sentence. Moreover, Martin’s sentence of 84 months is the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence. We conclude that Martin’s sentence is reasonable.
Pg: 3 of 3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for meritorious
issues and have found none. * Accordingly, we affirm Martin’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Martin, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Martin requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state
that a copy thereof was served on Martin. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
We have considered the issue raised in Martin’s pro se brief and conclude that it
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?