United States v. Sergio Martha-Marquez ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4287
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SERGIO MARTHA-MARQUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-4288
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCELINO ALDAY-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00105-FL-2; 5:11-cr-00105-FL-4)
Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 14, 2013
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Ennis Hight, Raleigh, North Carolina; Wayne Buchanan
Eads, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Sergio Martha-Marquez
and Marcelino Alday-Lopez (collectively “appellants”), appeal
their convictions and respective seventy-eight and seventy-two
month sentences of imprisonment based on their guilty pleas to
assault causing serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 113(a)(6) (2006). In accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), the appellants’ counsel have filed a brief
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning whether the appellants’ sentences are greater than
necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006). Although notified of their right to do so, neither
appellant has filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
We review sentences for reasonableness, using an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). We must first review for significant procedural errors,
including improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing
to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, sentencing
under clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain
the sentence. Id. at 51; United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155,
161 (4th Cir. 2008). Only if we find a sentence procedurally
reasonable may we consider its substantive reasonableness.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
3
Here, our review of the record indicates no procedural
error in the imposition of the appellants’ sentences. Further,
the district court adequately explained the basis for the
appellants’ within-Guidelines range sentences based on the goals
of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and we find nothing to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Powell, 650
F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Alday-Lopez’s and Martha-Marquez’s convictions
and sentences. This court requires that each counsel inform his
client, in writing, of his individual right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Alday-Lopez or Martha-Marquez requests that a petition be filed,
but his counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on his client. 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.
AFFIRMED
4