07-0684-cr
United States v. Marte
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL ..
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 17 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 ROGER J. MINER,
9 DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14 Appellee,
15
16 -v.- 07-0684-cr
17
18 JOSE MIGUEL MARTE,
19 Defendant-Appellant.
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
21
22 FOR PETITIONER: Steven A. Feldman, Feldman and Feldman,
23 Uniondale, NY; Jose Miguel Marte, pro se,
24 Philipsburg, PA.
25 FOR APPELLEE: Amanda Kramer, Andrew L. Fish, Assistant
26 United States Attorneys, of Counsel, for
27 Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for
28 the Southern District of New York, New
29 York, NY.
1
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
2 Court for the Southern District of New York (Wood, J.).
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
6 AFFIRMED. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
7 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
8 presented for review.
9
10 On December 20, 2006, Jose Marte was sentenced to 220
11 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to multiple drug
12 dealing offenses. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841, 846. We
13 reject Marte’s challenges to his guilty pleas and sentence.
14
15 Marte’s guilty pleas were made knowingly and
16 voluntarily, see United States v. Torres, 129 F.3d 710, 715
17 (2d Cir. 1997), and were supported by an adequate factual
18 basis, see United States v. Andrades, 169 F.3d 131, 136 (2d
19 Cir. 1999). The district court made no clear errors when it
20 found (by a preponderance of evidence) predicate facts
21 supporting a Guidelines range of 235-293 months. See United
22 States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 206 (2d Cir. 2007);
23 United States v. Ubiera, 486 F.3d 71, 77 (2d Cir. 2007). A
24 sentence of 220 months’ imprisonment was not substantively
25 unreasonable. See United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180,
26 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (in banc).
27
28 While there seems to be no evidence in the record to
29 support the claim of ineffective counsel that Marte made in
30 his pro se brief, the government concedes that “[m]ost of
31 Marte’s ineffective assistance claims cannot be resolved
32 without further development of the record....” Therefore,
33 we dismiss Marte’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim
34 without prejudice to its being filed in a later section 2255
35 petition. See United States v. Khedr, 343 F.3d 96, 99 (2d
36 Cir. 2003) (noting that “this court has expressed a baseline
37 aversion to resolving ineffectiveness claims on direct
38 review” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
39
40 Finding no merit in Marte’s remaining arguments, we
41 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
42
43
44 FOR THE COURT:
45 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
46
2