Case: 14-40814 Document: 00513194009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 14-40814 September 15, 2015
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RUBEN MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CR-161
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ruben Martinez appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to
possess with intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, for
which the district court sentenced him to 150 months of imprisonment.
According to Martinez, the district court erred in denying his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea based on its reliance on the factors outlined in United
States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984), to analyze his motion. We,
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-40814 Document: 00513194009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2015
No. 14-40814
however, have recently reiterated the court’s responsibility to consider the
Carr factors, see United States v. Harrison, 777 F.3d 227, 234 (5th Cir. 2015),
and his argument on that point is therefore unavailing. Martinez does not
otherwise identify error in the district court’s analysis of the Carr factors, and
thus has waived such a challenge. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352
F.3d 934, 936 n.2 (5th Cir. 2003). He fails to show that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. See United States v. Urias-
Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir. 2014).
Martinez likewise fails to provide legal or factual analysis of his claim
that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform him
that the district court lacked venue, by failing to inform him that he would
receive the same sentence if he pleaded guilty on the day of trial as if he went
to trial, and by “spoon [feeding]” him the answers to the district court’s
questions at rearraignment. Therefore, he has waived his ineffective
assistance claim as well. See Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d at 936 n.2.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2