United States v. Gabriel Martinez, No. 09-1201 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not commit procedural or substantive error in sentencing defendant to life imprisonment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-1201 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Gabriel Martinez, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: January 11, 2010 Filed: February 5, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Gabriel Martinez directly appeals after the district court1 sentenced him to life imprisonment upon his guilty plea to conspiracy with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); causing death by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1); murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); attempted escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a); 1 The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. conspiracy to escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 751(a); and obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a). On appeal, his counsel has moved for permission to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In a pro se supplemental brief, Martinez suggests that his counsel was ineffective, but we decline to consider this matter on direct appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. In particular, we conclude that the district court committed no procedural or substantive error in sentencing Martinez. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standards for reviewing sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Martinez about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
