UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Martinez pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act
robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012), and using and carrying
firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) (2012). 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 stating that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal. Martinez was advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Our review of the transcript of Martinez’s 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 Martinez’s convictions.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46, 51 (2007). 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, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. 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 . . . satisfied the standards set forth in
§ 3553(a).” 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 Martinez’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. With respect to the explanation of
the sentence, the court stated that it denied a requested
variance because it had granted the Government’s 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. We
therefore affirm Martinez’s convictions and sentence. 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 may move in this court to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s 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
4