UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4789

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ABNER MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:11-cr-02135-JFA-1)

Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leslie T. Sarji, SARJI LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Abner Martinez appeals the district court’s judgment 

imposing a 168-month sentence following his guilty plea to 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to 

distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine base, in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). On appeal, 

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Martinez’s

sentence. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first ensure that the 

district court committed no significant procedural error, such 

as improper calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range, 

insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) 

factors and the parties’ sentencing arguments, and inadequate 

explanation of the sentence imposed. United States v. Lynn, 592 

F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is free from 

significant procedural error, we also review the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Id. The sentence imposed must 

be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with 

the purposes” of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A withinGuidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the 
3

defendant bears the burden to “rebut the presumption by 

demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured 

against the § 3553(a) factors.” See United States v. MontesPineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

We conclude that the district court imposed a 

procedurally and substantively reasonable sentence. The court 

properly calculated Martinez’s applicable Guidelines range. The 

court addressed the parties’ arguments, made detailed findings 

on the record, and articulated the basis for the sentence it 

imposed, grounded in the § 3553(a) factors. Finally, we 

conclude that neither Martinez nor the available record rebuts 

the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines 

sentence. See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379.

Martinez filed a pro se supplemental brief raising 

ineffective assistance of counsel in plea bargaining because 

Martinez did not realize that the Guidelines enhancements could 

increase his sentence. Because the record does not conclusively 

establish that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we 

decline to address this claim on direct appeal. See United 

States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) (conclusive 

evidence of ineffective assistance must appear on the record). 

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

case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 
4

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Martinez, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Martinez 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 Martinez. 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