USA v. Ralph Georg Toni Martin, No. 16-14850 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-14850 Date Filed: 09/27/2018 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-14850 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 8:16-cr-00500-VMC-AEP-1, 6:98-cr-00096-GKS-DAB-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RALPH GEORG TONI MARTIN, a.k.a. Mirko Doninic Martin, a.k.a. Mirko Dominik Martin, a.k.a. Dominik Martin, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (September 27, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ralph Martin appeals his conviction for failure to appear at a sentencing hearing, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1), and sentence of 6-months Case: 16-14850 Date Filed: 09/27/2018 Page: 2 of 2 imprisonment to be followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. Martin’s appointed counsel says that Martin has no meritorious issues to bring to our attention on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). To that end, counsel has filed a brief “pointing the court to any argument which may arguably support an appeal.” United States v. Edwards, 822 F.2d 1012, 1013 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). On March 19, 2018, counsel certified that he sent a copy of the brief and his motion to withdraw as counsel to Martin. This Court sent Martin a letter in March of 2018 advising him of his right to respond to counsel’s motion within 30 days. As of August 24, 2018, we received no response from Martin. As Anders requires, we have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record, and we have independently determined that there are no issues of arguable merit for our review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Therefore, we AFFIRM Martin’s conviction and sentence, and we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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.
