Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01201/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01201-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gabriel Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1201

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of North Dakota.

*

Gabriel Martinez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2010

Filed: February 5, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gabriel Martinez directly appeals after the district court1

 sentenced him to life

imprisonment upon his guilty plea to conspiracy with intent to distribute controlled

substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); causing death by the use of

a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1); murder in

furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 848(e)(1)(A); attempted escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a);

Appellate Case: 09-1201 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2010 Entry ID: 3631730
-2-

conspiracy to escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 751(a); and

obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a). On appeal, his counsel has

moved for permission to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). In a pro se supplemental brief, Martinez suggests that his

counsel was ineffective, but we decline to consider this matter on direct appeal. See

United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate court

ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. In particular, we conclude

that the district court committed no procedural or substantive error in sentencing

Martinez. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)

(standards for reviewing sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel

informing Martinez about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for

certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1201 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2010 Entry ID: 3631730