United States of America v. ODELL MARTIN, JR., a/k/a Teazy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4798
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ODELL MARTIN, JR., a/k/a Teazy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:12-cr-00513-JFA-22)
Submitted: October 29, 2014 Decided: November 13, 2014
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, Eutawville, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Odell Martin, Jr., appeals his sentence of 240 months’
imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to conduct a
pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1962(d) and 1963(a) (2012). Martin’s counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the district court erred in finding that an alleged
armed robbery was relevant conduct for sentencing. Martin filed
a pro se supplemental brief, also questioning whether the armed
robbery should have been considered, and further arguing that
the district court erred in failing to grant him reductions for
acceptance of responsibility and time served, and that the
Government should have been required to plead the relevant
conduct and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government
did not file a brief. We affirm.
Martin and his counsel both allege that the district
court erred in finding that the armed robbery was relevant
conduct to the conspiracy conviction. We review the district
court’s factual findings during sentencing for clear error.
United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010). Our
review of the record supports the district court’s finding that
Martin, with fellow gang members, entered a personal residence

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and, while holding the residents at gunpoint, stole cash,
clothing, and video games. We thus conclude that the district
court did not clearly err in holding that the armed robbery was
relevant conduct to the racketeering conspiracy.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed Martin’s
pro se claims and the record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district
court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform
Martin, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Martin 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 Martin. 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

-- 3 of 3 --