United States v. Martinez , 238 F. App'x 998 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4908
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-01331-PMD)
Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Michael Hisker, Duncan, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Martinez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000).
He was sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment. Martinez’ attorney
on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in
applying the sentencing guidelines as mandatory in violation of
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Because the district
court in fact appropriately applied the guidelines as advisory in
sentencing Martinez post-Booker, and advised him of the advisory
nature of the guidelines at the plea hearing, we find counsel’s
claim meritless.
Martinez was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not done so. In accordance with
Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
Martinez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a 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 thereof was served on the client. We
- 2 -
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
- 3 -