UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5276
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DETRICK MANDINAS MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:09-cr-01330-GRA-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2011 Decided: August 10, 2011
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Detrick Mandinas Martin pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to possession of a firearm after being convicted of a
felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The
district court sentenced him to a term of eighty-four months’
imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range.
Martin’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no nonfrivolous
issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court
correctly assessed criminal history points and adequately
explained the chosen sentence. Martin has filed pro se
supplemental briefs. * Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 575 (4th Cir.
2010). We begin by reviewing the sentence for “significant
procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
*
In addition to reiterating the issues raised by counsel,
Martin asserts that the district court erred in applying a four-
level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) (2009). We have considered Martin’s challenge
to the application of this enhancement and conclude that it is
without merit.
2
§ 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). This court next
assesses the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking
into account the ‘totality of the circumstances, including the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.’” United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Where, as here, a defendant’s sentence
falls within the Guidelines range, the district court’s decision
enjoys a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the
sentencing proceedings and conclude that the district court
committed no procedural error. The court properly determined
that Martin’s felony drug offenses were counted separately for
criminal history purposes, see USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2), and the
court’s explanation, though brief, was based upon the facts of
the case before the court. See Carter, 564 at 330. Finally,
Martin fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded
his within-Guidelines sentence. Thus, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing an eighty-four-month
sentence.
3
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 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
4