US v. Juan Martinez, No. 14-4940 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4940 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Carlos written plea robbery, 18 firearms during Martinez agreement U.S.C. pled § 1951 and in in conspiracy to guilty to (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 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 further review. 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
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.
