USA v. Alejandro Martinez, No. 10-1199 (7th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted October 21, 2010 Decided October 25, 2010 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge No. 10 1199 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 08 CR 822 1 ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ, Defendant Appellant. Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge. ORDER Alejandro Martinez, a member of the Spanish Cobras street gang, pleaded guilty to distributing a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 180 months imprisonment, almost 7 years below the applicable guidelines range. Martinez filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer has not identified an arguable basis to challenge Martinez s conviction or sentence and seeks permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We invited Martinez to respond to counsel s motion, see CIR. R. 51(b), but he has not. We limit our review to the potential issues identified in counsel s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002). No. 10-1199 Page 2 Martinez stands by his guilty plea. Counsel, therefore, does not discuss the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel has evaluated whether Martinez could challenge the calculation of his guidelines imprisonment range. The district court found that Martinez is a career offender because of prior convictions for possessing crack with intent to distribute and for delivering cocaine, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(A), which resulted in a base offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI. The court applied a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, and determined that the imprisonment range was 262 to 327 months. In his plea agreement, Martinez stipulated to this range and to the underlying calculations, so we agree with counsel that an appellate challenge would be frivolous. See United States v. Cole, 569 F.3d 774, 775 (7th Cir. 2009). Counsel also considers whether Martinez could argue that his 180-month prison sentence is unreasonably high. But the term is almost 7 years less than the low end of the guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Liddell, 543 F.3d 877, 885 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. George, 403 F.3d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 2005). Counsel has not suggested a reason why the presumption would not stand, and we can think of none. Counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
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.
