United States v. Detrick Martin, 4th Cir. (2011)

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Martins 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
explained
the
criminal
chosen
supplemental briefs. *
history
sentence.
points
Martin
and
has
adequately
filed
pro
se
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
procedural
improperly
begin
by
error,
reviewing
including
calculating)
the
the
sentence
failing
Guidelines
for
to
range,
significant
calculate
treating
(or
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 fourlevel enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
2K2.1(b)(4)(B) (2009).
We have considered Martins challenge
to the application of this enhancement and conclude that it is
without merit.
3553(a)
[(2006)]
factors,
selecting
sentence
based
on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the

chosen
sentence.
Gall,
552
U.S.
at
51;
United
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
States
v.
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 defendants sentence
falls within the Guidelines range, the district courts 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
committed no procedural error.
that
the
district
court
The court properly determined
that Martins felony drug offenses were counted separately for

criminal
history
purposes,
see
USSG
4A1.2(a)(2),
and
the
courts 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.
not
abuse
its
discretion
Thus, the district court did
in
imposing
sentence.
an
eighty-four-month
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 courts judgment.
This court
requires that counsel inform Martin, in writing, of the right to

petition
the
Supreme
review.
If
Martin
Court
of
requests
the
that
United
a
States
petition
for
be
further
filed,
but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsels 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

United States v. Detrick Martin, 4th Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Detrick Martin, 4th Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Detrick Martin, 4th Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

July 29, 2011

August 10, 2011

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

district court sentenced him to a term of eighty-four months

Martins counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]

In addition to reiterating the issues raised by counsel,

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).

This court next

assesses the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking

Where, as here, a defendants sentence

falls within the Guidelines range, the district courts decision

See United States v.

Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).

committed no procedural error.

The court properly determined

that Martins felony drug offenses were counted separately for

courts explanation, though brief, was based upon the facts of

See Carter, 564 at 330.

Martin fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded

Thus, the district court did

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

requires that counsel inform Martin, in writing, of the right to

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

Counsels 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

You might also like