United States v. Ruben Martinez

616 F. App'x 131
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 15, 2015
Docket14-40814
StatusUnpublished

This text of 616 F. App'x 131 (United States v. Ruben Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Ruben Martinez, 616 F. App'x 131 (5th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

*132 PER CURIAM: *

Ruben Martinez appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, for which the district court sentenced him to 150 months of imprisonment. According to Martinez, the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on its reliance on the factors outlined in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.1984), to analyze his motion. We, however, have recently reiterated the court’s responsibility to consider the Carr factors, see United States v. Harrison, 111 F.3d 227, 234 (5th Cir.2015), and his argument on that point is therefore unavailing. Martinez does not otherwise identify error in the district court’s analysis of the Carr factors, and thus has waived such a challenge. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 936 n. 2 (5th Cir.2003). He fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. See United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir.2014).

Martinez likewise fails to provide legal or factual analysis of his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform him that the district court lacked venue, by failing to inform him that he would receive the same sentence if he pleaded guilty on the day of trial as if he went to trial, and by “spoon [feeding]” him the answers to the district court’s questions at rearraignment. Therefore, he has waived his ineffective assistance claim as well. See Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d at 936 n. 2.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that, this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Related

United States v. Torres-Aguilar
352 F.3d 934 (Fifth Circuit, 2004)
In Re: San Juan v. Massaro
111 F.3d 220 (First Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Michael Carr
740 F.2d 339 (Fifth Circuit, 1984)
United States v. Ana Urias-Marrufo
744 F.3d 361 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
616 F. App'x 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ruben-martinez-ca5-2015.