Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    United States v. Juan Martinez, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Juan Carlos Martinez pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He was sentenced to 24 months for the conspiracy charge and 120 months, consecutive, for the firearm charge. 2) Martinez appealed his conviction and sentence. His attorney filed a brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, consistent with Anders v. California. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed Martinez's convictions, finding his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and there was a factual basis for the plea. The court also found Martinez's sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Juan Martinez, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views4 pages
    1) Juan Carlos Martinez pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He was sentenced to 24 months for the conspiracy charge and 120 months, consecutive, for the firearm charge. 2) Martinez appealed his conviction and sentence. His attorney filed a brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, consistent with Anders v. California. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed Martinez's convictions, finding his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and there was a factual basis for the plea. The court also found Martinez's sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-08-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4940

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Juan Carlos Martinez pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He was sentenced to 24 months for the conspiracy charge and 120 months, consecutive, for the firearm charge. 2) Martinez appealed his conviction and sentence. His attorney filed a brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, consistent with Anders v. California. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed Martinez's convictions, finding his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and there was a factual basis for the plea. The court also found Martinez's sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    19 views4 pages

    United States v. Juan Martinez, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Juan Carlos Martinez pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He was sentenced to 24 months for the conspiracy charge and 120 months, consecutive, for the firearm charge. 2) Martinez appealed his conviction and sentence. His attorney filed a brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, consistent with Anders v. California. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed Martinez's convictions, finding his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and there was a factual basis for the plea. The court also found Martinez's sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4940

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
    David A. Faber,
    Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00037-FA-8)

    Submitted:

    August 18, 2015

    Decided:

    August 20, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    W.H. Paramore, III, W.H. PARAMORE, III, P.C., Jacksonville,


    North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Jennifer P. May-Parker,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Juan

    Carlos

    written

    plea

    robbery,

    18

    firearms

    during

    Martinez

    agreement
    U.S.C.

    pled

    to

    1951

    and

    in

    guilty

    in

    conspiracy

    to

    (2012),

    relation

    U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(B)(i) (2012).

    to

    and
    a

    accordance
    commit
    using

    crime

    Hobbs

    and

    of

    with

    Act

    carrying

    violence,

    18

    He was sentenced to 24 months

    for the conspiracy and 120 months, consecutive, for the firearm
    offense.

    Martinez now appeals.

    His attorney has filed a brief

    in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),


    raising

    one

    issue

    but

    grounds for appeal.


    pro

    se

    stating

    that

    there

    are

    no

    meritorious

    Martinez was advised of his right to file a

    supplemental

    brief

    but

    has

    not

    filed

    such

    brief.

    Finding no error, we affirm.


    Our review of the transcript of Martinezs Fed. R. Crim. P.
    11 hearing discloses that the district court fully complied with
    the Rule, the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered,
    and there was a factual basis for the plea.

    We accordingly

    affirm Martinezs convictions.


    We

    review

    sentence

    abuse-of-discretion standard.
    38, 46, 51 (2007).

    for

    reasonableness,

    applying

    an

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

    This review requires consideration of both

    the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.


    Id. at 51.

    We first assess whether the district court properly

    calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors


    2

    set forth at 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments


    presented

    by

    the

    parties,

    selected sentence.

    and

    sufficiently

    explained

    the

    Id. at 49-51; see United States v. Lynn, 592

    F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010).

    If there is no procedural

    error, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,


    examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether
    the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that
    the

    sentence

    3553(a).

    satisfied

    the

    standards

    set

    forth

    in

    United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216

    (4th Cir. 2010).


    After thorough consideration of the record, including the
    presentence investigation report and the sentencing transcript,
    we

    conclude

    that

    Martinezs

    substantively reasonable.
    the

    sentence,

    the

    court

    sentence

    is

    procedurally

    and

    With respect to the explanation of


    stated

    that

    it

    denied

    requested

    variance because it had granted the Governments motion for a


    departure

    based

    on

    U.S.

    Sentencing

    Guidelines

    Manual

    5K1.1

    (2014), and did not believe that the circumstances warranted a


    lower sentence.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
    this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    therefore

    affirm

    Martinezs

    convictions

    and

    sentence.

    We
    This

    court requires counsel, in writing, to inform Martinez of the


    right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    3

    further review.

    If Martinez requests that a petition be filed,

    but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,


    then

    counsel

    representation.

    may

    move

    in

    this

    court

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must state that a copy of the

    motion was served on Martinez.

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented


    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy