Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04070/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Martinez-Salinas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4070

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Ricardo Martinez-Salinas, * Northern District of Iowa

*

Appellant. * [Unpublished]

___________

Submitted: October 5, 2004

Filed: October 12, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Martinez-Salinas (Martinez) appeals from the final judgment entered

in the District Court1

 for the Northern District of Iowa after he pleaded guilty to two

counts of distributing drugs within 1,000 feet of a protected location, in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 860(a). The district court sentenced

appellant to concurrent terms of 78 months imprisonment. Counsel has moved to

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

the district court plainly erred in assessing a firearm enhancement. In his pro se brief,

Appellate Case: 03-4070 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2004 Entry ID: 1820492 
-2-

Martinez adopts the Anders argument, and adds that he received ineffective assistance

during the plea negotiations and hearing. Martinez has also filed a Fed. R. App. P.

28(j) letter, arguing his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004), because it was enhanced based on factual findings not made by a jury. For

the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

The Anders argument is without merit. Martinez abandoned the issue when,

at sentencing, he and his counsel withdrew his objection to the presentence report’s

(PSR’s) recommendation for a firearm enhancement. See United States v. Olano, 507

U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993) (claim relinquished below need not be addressed on appeal);

United States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d 596, 600 (8th Cir. 1999) (issue deliberately waived

below is not reviewed, even for plain error). Further, Martinez’s ineffectiveassistance claim should be raised--if at all--in collateral proceedings, not on direct

appeal. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

Martinez’s Rule 28(j) Blakely argument also fails. His plea agreement

included stipulations as to drug quantity, protected location, and firearm possession.

See Blakely, 124 S. Ct. at 2541 (nothing prevents defendant from waiving his rights

under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); when defendant pleads guilty,

government is free to seek judicial sentence enhancements so long as defendant either

stipulates to relevant facts or consents to judicial factfinding); United States v. Lucca,

377 F.3d 927, 934 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that Blakely was not implicated where

defendant was sentenced based solely upon facts admitted as part of his guilty plea).

We have also carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues.

Thus, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4070 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2004 Entry ID: 1820492