US v. Herminio Solano-Martinez, No. 13-4512 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4512 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HERMINIO SOLANO-MARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cr-00553-PMD-1) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Herminio Solano-Martinez appeals his conviction and sixty-month sentence, following his guilty plea, to possession with intent violation to of distribute 500 grams U.S.C. 2 (2012), 18 (b)(1)(B) (2012). accordance with § or more 21 of U.S.C. cocaine, in § 841(a)(1), Solano-Martinez s counsel filed a brief in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the validity of Solano-Martinez s guilty plea and the reasonableness minimum sentence. of Solano-Martinez s statutory mandatory Solano-Martinez was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. Because Solano-Martinez did not move the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any errors in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002); see Henderson v. Untied States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27 (2013) (discussing plain error standard). A review of the record establishes that the district court complied with Rule 11 s requirements, ensuring that Solano-Martinez s plea was knowing and voluntary, that he understood the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and the sentence he faced, and that he committed the offense to 2 which he was pleading guilty. Accordingly, we affirm Solano- Martinez s conviction. We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. (2007). that The first step in this review requires us to ensure the error, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 district such as court committed improperly no significant calculating the procedural Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Id. at 51; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). sentence is substantive procedurally reasonable, reasonableness of the we sentence then at 51. consider imposed, into account the totality of the circumstances. If the the tak[ing] Gall, 552 U.S. Moreover, [a] statutorily required sentence . . . is per se reasonable[.] United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court properly calculated SolanoMartinez s Guidelines sentence, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Solano-Martinez to a sixty-month term, the statutory mandatory Solano-Martinez s minimum. sentence is We therefore procedurally and conclude that substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 3 We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Solano-Martinez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but If Solano-Martinez requests that a petition be counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on his client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
