US v. Odell Martin, Jr., No. 13-4798 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4798 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ODELL MARTIN, JR., a/k/a Teazy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00513-JFA-22) Submitted: October 29, 2014 Decided: November 13, 2014 Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, Eutawville, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Odell Martin, Jr., appeals his sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to conduct a pattern of racketeering activity, §§ 1962(d) and 1963(a) (2012). in violation of 18 U.S.C. Martin’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in finding that armed robbery was relevant conduct for sentencing. an alleged Martin filed a pro se supplemental brief, also questioning whether the armed robbery should have been considered, and further arguing that the district court erred in failing to grant him reductions for acceptance of responsibility Government should have been and time required served, to plead conduct and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. did not file a brief. and the that the relevant The Government We affirm. Martin and his counsel both allege that the district court erred in finding that the armed conduct to the conspiracy conviction. court’s factual findings during robbery was relevant We review the district sentencing for clear error. United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record supports the district court’s finding that Martin, with fellow gang members, entered a personal residence 2 and, while holding the residents clothing, and video games. at gunpoint, stole cash, We thus conclude that the district court did not clearly err in holding that the armed robbery was relevant conduct to the racketeering conspiracy. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed Martin’s pro se claims and the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court’s judgment. This We therefore affirm the district court requires that counsel inform Martin, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If Martin requests 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 served on Martin. the facts and legal materials before state dispense that with contentions are a oral copy thereof argument adequately was because presented in the We this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3