Court Opinion

ID: 9895142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:39.292887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:10.022864
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6581      Doc: 7         Filed: 11/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6581

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BRANDI MARTIN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cr-00209-1)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brandi Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Rada Herrald, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6581     Doc: 7         Filed: 11/03/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Brandi Martin pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more

        of methamphetamine. In August 2020, the district court sentenced Martin to 188 months’

        imprisonment. On direct appeal, we granted the Government’s motion to dismiss based on

        the appellate waiver included in Martin’s plea agreement. See United States v. Martin,

        No. 20-4455 (4th Cir. June 29, 2021) (unpublished order). In June 2023, Martin filed a

        second notice of appeal of the criminal judgment. Because we have previously dismissed

        an appeal from the same criminal judgment, we dismiss this appeal as duplicative. ∗ 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.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

              ∗
                  We do not express any view as to whether Martin may raise her arguments related
        to the alleged “purity disparity” between offenses involving “pure” methamphetamine and
        those involving a mixture of methamphetamine in a supplement to her motion for
        compassionate release, which remains pending in the district court.

                                                   2