US v. Abner Martinez, No. 12-4789 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4789 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ABNER MARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-02135-JFA-1) Submitted: May 23, 2013 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 28, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie T. Sarji, SARJI LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Abner Martinez appeals the district court s judgment imposing a 168-month conspiracy to sentence possess with following intent to his guilty plea to and to distribute distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal sentence. but questioning the reasonableness of Martinez s We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United We must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improper calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and the parties sentencing arguments, and inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed. F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). significant procedural error, United States v. Lynn, 592 If the sentence is free from we reasonableness of the sentence. also Id. review the substantive The sentence imposed must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A within- Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the 2 defendant bears the burden to rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Montes- Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court imposed procedurally and substantively reasonable sentence. a The court properly calculated Martinez s applicable Guidelines range. The court addressed the parties arguments, made detailed findings on the record, and articulated the basis for the sentence it imposed, grounded in the § 3553(a) factors. Finally, we conclude that neither Martinez nor the available record rebuts the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379. Martinez ineffective filed assistance of a pro se counsel supplemental in plea brief raising bargaining because Martinez did not realize that the Guidelines enhancements could increase his sentence. Because the record does not conclusively establish that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to address this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) (conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance must appear on the record). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious 3 issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Martinez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Martinez requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Martinez. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
