United States v. Israel Martinez, No. 12-1350 (8th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court committed no procedural error in determining defendant's advisory guidelines range, and the sentence it imposed was substantively reasonable. [ July 09, 2012

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 12-1350 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Israel Martinez, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: July 3, 2012 Filed: July 10, 2012 ___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Israel Martinez pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced him to 150 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Martinez s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court, in sentencing Martinez, committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures that no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-ofdiscretion standard, taking into account totality of circumstances; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. _____________________________ -2-

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.