United States v. Martin

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Martin

55 F. App'x 184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 2003

Docket02-4543

StatusUnpublished

This text of 55 F. App'x 184 (United States v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Martin, 55 F. App'x 184 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Maria Luisa Martin appeals her conviction and sentence pursuant to a violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2) (2000). Martin’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although counsel states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, he argues *185 that § 1326 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Neither Martin nor the United States filed a brief. In accordance with Anders, we have considered counsel’s brief and have examined the entire record for meritorious issues. We find no error and affirm.

On appeal, Martin’s counsel argues that § 1326 is unconstitutional under the holding in Apprendi. We have reviewed the record and find this appeal foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and by our decision in United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 2606, 153 L.Ed.2d 792 (2002).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Martin’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Maria Luisa Martin appeals her conviction and sentence pursuant to a violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2) (2000). Martin’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although counsel states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, he argues *185 that § 1326 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Neither Martin nor the United States filed a brief. In accordance with Anders, we have considered counsel’s brief and have examined the entire record for meritorious issues. We find no error and affirm.

On appeal, Martin’s counsel argues that § 1326 is unconstitutional under the holding in Apprendi. We have reviewed the record and find this appeal foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and by our decision in United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 2606, 153 L.Ed.2d 792 (2002).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Martin’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 F. App'x 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-martin-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack