United States v. Martin

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4719

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

TRACI LYNN MARTIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. William B. Traxler, Jr., Circuit
Judge, sitting by designation. (6:08-cr-00022-GRA-1)

Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: April 10, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. James D. Galyean, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Traci Lynn Martin pleaded guilty to two counts of

unlawful possession of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1708 (2006). Martin was sentenced to sixty-three months of

imprisonment. Martin’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but

stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Martin

has filed a pro se brief raising an additional issue. We

affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the

district court committed plain error in sentencing Martin. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

731-32 (1993). A sentence is reviewed for reasonableness,

applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v.

Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). The appellate court must

first determine whether the district court committed any

“significant procedural error,” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597, and

then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

applying a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within

the guidelines range. Go, 517 F.3d at 218; see also Gall, 128

S. Ct. at 597; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S.

Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of

reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence).

2
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that

the district court committed no procedural error in calculating

the sentence. Furthermore, we find that the district court’s

within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. Although Martin

claims in her pro se brief that the district court should have

considered her history of drug abuse and mental illness in

pronouncing the sentence, our review of the record reveals that

the district court did consider these issues in sentencing

Martin.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore

affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that

counsel inform Martin, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If

Martin requests that a petition be filed, but 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

Martin. 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