UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARTIN MARTINEZ SALDANA, 

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00049-RLV-DCK-1) 

Argued: September 22, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

ARGUED: Robert Lonnie Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, 

Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Martin Martinez Saldana of conspiracy to 

distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or 

more of methamphetamine and 50 to 500 grams of a mixture and 

substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and receiving or possessing a 

short-barreled shotgun that was not registered to him in the 

National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, in violation 

of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(c)-(d). The district court sentenced Saldana 

to life imprisonment. On appeal, Saldana challenges both the 

district court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal

and his within-Guidelines life sentence. Finding no error, we 

affirm. 

I.

A.

In 2008, the Ashe County, North Carolina, Sherriff’s Office 

received information from an anonymous source that Saldana was 

involved in drug trafficking. Officers began surveilling 

Saldana’s property in 2010, around the time they learned from a 

Virginia-based investigative team that a person trafficking 

methamphetamine had crashed his motorcycle near Saldana’s 

residence. In early 2012, the same team reported that a Hispanic 

man named Martin who worked at Adams Construction was 

trafficking methamphetamine. 
3

During 2012, the investigation into Saldana’s drug 

trafficking activity intensified. Officers orchestrated 

controlled purchases from two of Saldana’s customers, Danny 

Eller and Bobby Shore. After the officers conducted searches of 

the men’s residences that resulted in the seizure of 

methamphetamine, firearms, and cash, the two men agreed to 

cooperate in the Saldana investigation. 

In late October and early November 2012, Eller conducted 

two controlled purchases of methamphetamine from Jose Pina, who 

rented a trailer on Saldana’s property and ran Saldana’s 

methamphetamine business when Saldana was in Mexico. The bag of 

methamphetamine Eller purchased from Pina was wrapped in black 

electrical tape, cellophane, and a dryer sheet, which is a 

common method of masking the odor of drugs. After the second 

purchase, Pina stopped returning Eller’s phone calls. 

Accordingly, on December 11, 2012, officers decided to send 

Eller unannounced to Saldana’s property to talk to either 

Saldana or Pina. Pina did not answer the door of his trailer, 

but Eller recorded a conversation with Saldana. During this 

conversation, Saldana told Eller that it was “too hot,” which 

Eller testified meant that “the law [wa]s on [their] tails.” 

J.A. 500. At another point in the conversation, Saldana said, 

“I’m telling you so, I mean, things around here are pretty, 

pretty quiet,” meaning that Saldana was not conducting any drug 
4

transactions at the time. J.A. 501-02. Saldana also told Eller 

to “lay low,” or to “try to stay out of trouble.” J.A. 502.

The next day, officers sent Shore to Saldana’s property. 

Shore recorded Saldana saying that he was going to leave for 

Mexico the following night and asking Shore not to tell anyone 

about his plan. According to Shore, a few days prior to this 

meeting, Saldana had asked whether Shore knew if anyone was 

“getting in any trouble.” J.A. 548.

Knowing that they had to act quickly, officers immediately 

executed a search warrant at Saldana’s home and the adjacent 

property that Saldana owned. Officers discovered four unloaded 

firearms, including an unregistered, short-barreled shotgun; 

ammunition; electrical tape; cellophane; dryer sheets; latex 

gloves; one of Saldana’s identification cards; an overnight bag 

containing men’s clothing, Saldana’s bank statements, and his 

other personal items; and two cell phones that were found on 

Saldana’s person.

In February 2013, Pina disclosed where Saldana stashed 

methamphetamine and cash. Based on this information, officers 

conducted another search of Saldana’s property and found 

approximately $50,000 concealed in a buried PVC pipe; 

methamphetamine wrapped in electrical tape, cellophane, and 

dryer sheets; empty buried PVC pipes; two magazines for a gun; 

and ammunition. 
5

B.

A federal grand jury indicted Saldana and charged him with 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession of 

a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); possession of a firearm as a 

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); 

possession of a firearm as a person convicted of a misdemeanor 

crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(9); and possession of a short-barreled shotgun that was 

not registered to him, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(c)-(d). 

The government later dismissed without prejudice the charges 

under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

Saldana pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a jury trial.

Eller and Shore testified about their history of buying 

methamphetamine from Saldana, and Pina testified about selling 

methamphetamine on Saldana’s behalf. Two of Saldana’s coworkers 

also testified as government witnesses about Saldana’s drug 

trafficking activity. Clara Caudell testified that she worked 

with Saldana at Adams Construction, that she bought 

methamphetamine from him fairly consistently for a period of 

five years, and that she sold some of the methamphetamine to 

support her drug use. James Hawkins, another of Saldana’s 

coworkers at Adams Construction, testified that he sold “quite a 
6

bit” of methamphetamine for Saldana and that sometimes Saldana 

would “front” the drugs and Hawkins would “pay him later.” J.A. 

579-80.

The district court denied Saldana’s motion for a judgment 

of acquittal. The jury found Saldana guilty of participating in 

the drug trafficking conspiracy and possessing an unregistered, 

short-barreled shotgun, but it found him not guilty of 

possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

In Saldana’s presentence report, the probation officer 

grouped the offenses and calculated a base offense level of 38 

using the 5.9 kilograms of actual methamphetamine attributable 

to Saldana. The probation officer recommended a 2-level 

enhancement because Saldana possessed a dangerous weapon, a 2-

level enhancement because the offense involved importation of 

methamphetamine that Saldana knew was imported unlawfully, a 2-

level enhancement because Saldana maintained premises for 

distributing methamphetamine, a 4-level enhancement because 

Saldana was an organizer or leader of the conspiracy, and a 2-

level enhancement because Saldana “committed the offense as part 

of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood.” 

These enhancements yielded an adjusted offense level of 50. The 

probation officer recommended a total offense level of 43, the 

highest possible offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. 
7

With a criminal history category of I, Saldana’s advisory 

Guidelines sentence was life imprisonment.

At sentencing, the Government advised the court that the 

parties had agreed Saldana would withdraw his objections to the 

presentence report and the Government would withdraw the twolevel enhancements for importing methamphetamine, maintaining a 

premises for purpose of distributing a controlled substance, and 

engaging in criminal conduct as a livelihood. Saldana’s adjusted 

offense level without these enhancements was 44, but his total 

offense level remained 43, and his Guidelines sentence was still 

life imprisonment.

Saldana’s counsel moved for a downward departure or 

variance based on Saldana’s physical appearance. USSG § 5H1.4, 

p.s. (providing that “[p]hysical condition or appearance . . . 

may be relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted, 

if the condition or appearance . . . is present to an unusual 

degree and distinguishes the case from the typical cases covered 

by the guidelines”). Counsel explained that Saldana had “scars 

all over his body” from the gunshot and stab wounds he sustained 

when he was robbed in Mexico. J.A. 755. Counsel argued that

Saldana’s scars and soft-spoken nature would prompt other 

inmates to perceive him as vulnerable, which would “subject 

[him] to aggression” while incarcerated. J.A. 755-56. It is also 

possible, counsel contended, that inmates would believe that 
8

Saldana is an informant and “should be marked for death.” J.A. 

756. Counsel averred that, because Saldana is frail and not 

capable of protecting himself, his only options in prison are to 

join a gang or risk being marked as prey. Additionally, counsel 

argued that because there was no evidence of violence in the 

offense conduct and the jury did not convict Saldana of 

possessing the firearms in furtherance of the drug trafficking 

conspiracy, Saldana was far less “sinister” or “violent” than 

others sentenced by the court. J.A. 758. Finally, counsel 

emphasized Saldana’s poor health, which reduced his life 

expectancy, and his yearning to be with his family.

The court denied Saldana’s motion for a downward departure 

because Saldana’s physical appearance and medical conditions 

were “not extraordinary in degree and d[id] not make a 

compelling case for a particular vulnerability in the prison 

environment.” J.A. 764. The court noted that many of Saldana’s 

ailments “appear to be successfully addressed by medication” and 

that Saldana’s “scars could be taken as a mark of toughness” as 

easily as “a mark of vulnerability.” J.A. 764. Moreover, 

according to the district court, Saldana’s argument regarding 

the pressure to join a gang could apply to every inmate and, 

therefore, did not warrant a departure from the Guidelines. 

The court also declined to grant a variance. The court 

emphasized the “extremely serious” nature of the offense 
9

considering “the exceptional purity” of the methamphetamine and 

the “exceptionally high amount” of methamphetamine being “moved 

through numerous traffickers” under Saldana, who qualified as 

the “kingpin” of the methamphetamine trafficking organization. 

J.A. 765-66. The court also observed that Saldana used his 

property to “hide proceeds . . . and facilitate . . . 

distribution” and used his “naturalized citizenship” to easily 

move back and forth from Mexico. J.A. 765-66. The court stated 

that any damage to Saldana’s family caused by his imprisonment

can only be attributed to his choice to participate in criminal 

activity. J.A. 765. Finally, the court found that Saldana’s 

argument regarding his lowered life expectancy was “speculative” 

and that Saldana’s legitimate employment, which “likely 

provid[ed] a cover for his drug dealing,” also did not justify a 

variance. J.A. 766.

The court sentenced Saldana to life imprisonment on the 

drug conspiracy charge and a term of 120 months on the firearm 

charge, to be served concurrently. Saldana filed a timely 

appeal.

II.

Saldana first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting his drug conspiracy conviction. We review de novo the 

district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. 

United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405, 419 (4th Cir. 2012). In 
10

assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether 

there is substantial evidence to support the conviction when 

viewed in the light most favorable to the government. Id.

“Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of 

fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a 

conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Thus, “[a] 

defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge must overcome a heavy 

burden, and reversal for insufficiency must be confined to cases 

where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id. (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). 

To obtain a drug trafficking conspiracy conviction under 21 

U.S.C. § 846, “the government must prove that (1) the defendant 

entered into an agreement with one or more persons to engage in 

conduct that violated 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (2) that the 

defendant had knowledge of that conspiracy; and (3) that the 

defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the 

conspiracy.” United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 525 (4th 

Cir. 2014) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Given the clandestine and covert nature of conspiracies, the 

government can prove the existence of a conspiracy by 

circumstantial evidence alone.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “Evidence of continuing relationships and repeated 

transactions can support the finding that there was a 

conspiracy, especially when coupled with substantial quantities 
11

of drugs.” Id. at 526 (alterations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that 

there was more than sufficient evidence to convict Saldana of 

conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine. The Government presented ample evidence 

demonstrating that Saldana was the leader of a drug trafficking 

operation involving a large quantity of methamphetamine. The 

evidence of Saldana’s guilt included the following: (1) Eller’s

and Shore’s recorded conversations with Saldana in which Saldana

expressed his concerns about law enforcement activity in the 

area and said that he planned to flee to Mexico; (2) searches of 

Saldana’s property that produced methamphetamine, drug packaging 

materials, firearms, ammunition, and a large sum of money; (3) 

testimony from Eller, Shore, and Caudell that they bought 

methamphetamine, some of which was used for redistribution, from 

Saldana, or from Pina in Saldana’s absence; and (4) Pina’s and 

Hawkins’s testimony that they sold methamphetamine for Saldana. 

Although Saldana argues that the coconspirators who testified at 

his trial are untrustworthy, “[i]n evaluating the sufficiency of 

the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the 

witnesses.” United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 

2007). 
12

III.

Saldana also argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We 

review a sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-

-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007); United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 

2015). This review requires consideration of both the procedural 

and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. 

at 51.

In determining whether a sentence is procedurally 

reasonable, we examine, among other factors, whether the 

district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and 

sufficiently explained its chosen sentence. Id. at 51. Saldana 

contends that the court did not adequately address the § 3553(a) 

factors and that the court’s explanation for the sentence was 

therefore deficient. We conclude that Saldana’s argument is 

meritless, as the court provided a lengthy and thorough 

explanation for the sentence, drawing upon its careful 

consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, Saldana’s history and 

characteristics, the need to afford adequate deterrence to 

criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public.

Saldana also challenges the substantive reasonableness of 

his life sentence. A sentence, such as Saldana’s, that is 

“within . . . a properly calculated [Sentencing] Guidelines 
13

range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a 

presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is 

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.

2014) (citation omitted). Saldana attempts to rebut the 

presumption by contending that the court failed to accord 

appropriate weight to the mitigating factors emphasized at the 

sentencing hearing, including the “extraordinary likelihood” 

that he will be victimized while in prison, the possibility that 

he will lose his strong familial relationships, his nonviolent 

nature, and his deteriorating health. Appellant’s Br. at 26.

We conclude that Saldana has failed to make the requisite 

showing. The district court considered the mitigating factors 

and concluded that there was no reason to depart or vary from 

the Guidelines. Saldana did not demonstrate to the satisfaction 

of the district court that he was extraordinarily frail, and the 

court found that many of his medical issues are successfully 

addressed by medication. The court concluded that his physical 

appearance does not make him particularly vulnerable in prison 

because his scars could be taken as a mark of toughness. The 

court further determined that any potential pressure Saldana 

would face to join a gang applied to all prisoners and therefore 

did not justify a below-Guidelines sentence. There is no showing 

here that these findings are clearly erroneous.
14

The court did not ignore the likelihood that Saldana would 

lose the support of his family while incarcerated; rather, it 

concluded that losing familial connections is a consequence of 

Saldana’s choice to participate in criminal activity. The court 

permissibly concluded that the massive amount of pure 

methamphetamine, Saldana’s leadership role in the drug 

trafficking conspiracy, the numerous people involved in the 

conspiracy, and the fact that Saldana used his property and 

citizenship to further the conspiracy outweighed the mitigating 

factors presented by Saldana and warranted a life sentence.

Although these findings were certainly not compelled by this 

record, they are not clearly erroneous, and thus do not render 

the imposition of a life sentence an abuse of discretion.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 

court is

AFFIRMED.