United States v. Juan Martinez, Jr. ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4468
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUAN MARTINEZ, JR., a/k/a El Indio, a/k/a Indio,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:11-cr-02062-JFA-1)
Submitted: February 11, 2013 Decided: February 21, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Nicole N. Mace, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Martinez, Jr., pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to: conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with intent to distribute 1000 kg. or more of marijuana
and five kg. or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846
(2006); and engaging in a monetary transaction in criminally
derived property of a value greater than $10,000, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1957 (2006). Martinez was sentenced to 168 months in prison.
He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Martinez was advised of
his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief.
The United States has moved to dismiss the appeal
based on Martinez’s waiver of his right to appeal, which is
included in the plea agreement. Upon review of the plea
agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
proceeding, we conclude that Martinez knowingly and voluntarily
waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence and that
the issues he seeks to raise on appeal fall squarely within the
scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant the motion to
dismiss as to all issues that a defendant may lawfully waive.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for non-waivable meritorious issues and have found none.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment as to all
issues not encompassed by Martinez’s waiver of appellate rights.
This court requires that counsel inform Martinez, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Martinez requests that
such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that the 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 of the motion was served on Martinez. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3