UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4251
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR HUGO MARTINEZ-LUCIO, a/k/a Victor LNU, a/k/a Victor
Martinez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-00787-HMH-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2010 Decided: November 16, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wallace H. Jordan, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Hugo Martinez-Lucio appeals from his conviction
and fifty-seven month sentence following his guilty plea to
three counts of sale of a firearm to a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006).
Martinez-Lucio’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting
Martinez-Lucio’s guilty plea. Martinez-Lucio, advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, did not do so. We
affirm.
Because Martinez-Lucio did not move in the district
court to withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We conclude the district court fully
complied with the Rule 11 requirements in accepting
Martinez-Lucio’s guilty plea. During the plea hearing, in
compliance with Rule 11, the district court properly informed
Martinez-Lucio of the rights he was forfeiting as a result of
his plea and the nature of the charges and penalties he faced,
found that Martinez-Lucio was competent and entering his plea
voluntarily, and determined there was a sufficient factual basis
for the plea. Therefore, the record establishes Martinez-Lucio
2
knowingly and voluntarily entered into his guilty plea with a
full understanding of the consequences and there was no error in
the district court’s acceptance of the plea.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Martinez-Lucio, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Martinez-Lucio 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 Martinez-Lucio. 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
3