United States v. Terrance Martin

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-4494
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4494 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRENCE ANTONIO MARTIN, a/k/a Buck,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (8:21-cr-00490-TMC-3)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jonathan M. Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Justin William Holloway, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4494 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Antonio Martin pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to felon

in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924

(a)(2), (e), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D). The district court sentenced Martin to 102 months’ imprisonment

and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Martin’s counsel has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Martin’s conviction for felon in

possession of a firearm in his residence was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment

in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); whether the

district court plainly erred in accepting Martin’s plea on that count; whether Martin’s guilty

plea is valid; and whether the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. Martin was

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The

Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in Martin’s

plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The waiver provision in the plea agreement does not preclude our review pursuant

to Anders of the validity of Martin’s guilty plea. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d

358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018). Because Martin did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we

review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v.

Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480,

491 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads us to

conclude that Martin entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily, that a factual basis

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4494 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

supported the plea, and that his guilty plea is valid. See United States v. DeFusco, 949

F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991) (discussing district court’s obligations under Rule

11).

Next, “[w]e review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls

within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir.

2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of the record, including the plea

agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Martin

knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence, with

limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and

enforceable and that the Second Amendment and sentencing issues raised by Anders

counsel fall squarely within the waiver’s scope. See Oliver v. United States, 951 F.3d 841,

848 (7th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “normal constitutional challenges to a statute of

conviction fall comfortably within the permissible scope of valid [appellate] waivers”).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant in part the Government’s

motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the appellate waiver.

We also deny in part the motion to dismiss and affirm as to any issue not precluded by the

appellate waiver.

This court requires that counsel inform Martin, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Martin requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4494 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

that a copy thereof was served on Martin.

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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART