US v. Traci Martin, No. 08-4719 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4719 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRACI LYNN MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. William B. Traxler, Jr., Circuit Judge, sitting by designation. (6:08-cr-00022-GRA-1) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and April 10, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. James D. Galyean, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Traci Lynn Martin pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 1708 (2006). imprisonment. Martin was sentenced to sixty-three months of Martin s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. has filed a pro se brief In the Anders raising an Martin additional issue. We questions whether the affirm. brief, counsel district court committed plain error in sentencing Martin. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). applying an A abuse sentence of is discretion reviewed for standard. reasonableness, Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). first determine whether the The appellate court must district court committed any significant procedural error, Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597, and then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, applying a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range. Go, 517 F.3d at 218; see also Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). 2 presumption of We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that the district court committed no procedural error in calculating the sentence. Furthermore, we find that the district court s within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. Although Martin claims in her pro se brief that the district court should have considered her history of drug abuse and mental illness in pronouncing the sentence, our review of the record reveals that the district court did consider these issues in sentencing Martin. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore 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 before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
