UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5232
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PATRICIO HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00073-WO-2)
Submitted: March 23, 2011 Decided: April 19, 2011
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton B. Shoaf, Jr., Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patricio Hernandez Martinez appeals the sixty-five-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy
to distribute 500 or more grams of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Martinez’s counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Martinez’s
conviction. Martinez filed a pro se supplemental brief. *
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether
the evidence was sufficient for the district court to accept
Martinez’s guilty plea. Upon review, we conclude that by
pleading guilty, Martinez waived his right to contest the
sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction. See
United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993) (“[A]
guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional
defects, including the right to contest the factual merits of
the charges.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
*
In his pro se brief, Martinez asserts that the indictment
was insufficient to confer jurisdiction, that the district court
erred in imposing the sentence, and that the Government breached
the plea agreement. We have carefully reviewed these claims and
conclude that they lack merit.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Martinez, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Martinez requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
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. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3