US v. Larry Martin, No. 12-4875 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4875 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY JAMES MARTIN, a/k/a Wolfman, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:12-cr-00011-JPB-JSK-1) Submitted: April 4, 2013 Decided: April 25, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lary D. Garrett, GARRETT & GARRETT, Moorefield, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Stephen Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry James Martin pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of material used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6), (d)(2) (2006), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). The district imprisonment. court sentenced Martin to 120 months On appeal, Martin asserts that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court imposed the statutory maximum sentence and declined to grant a downward variance. We affirm. We review Martin s sentence under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). requires This review consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After determining whether the district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines considered presented the by range, § 3553(a) the selected sentence. we must factors, parties, and decide whether analyzed sufficiently the the court arguments explained the Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Once we have determined that the sentence is free of procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, tak[ing] into account 2 the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the appellant demonstrates that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Martin alleges that the district court erred in imposing the statutory maximum sentence and in failing to grant a downward procedural conclude variance. error, that Martin and our Martin has does review not of not the overcome assert record the any specific leads us to presumption of substantive reasonableness applicable to his within-Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
