# United States v. Juan Martinez, A/K/A Jesus Garcia, A/K/A Roberto Gonzalez

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 17, 2002 · 277 F.3d 517

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494682

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan MARTINEZ, A/K/A Jesus Garcia, A/K/A Roberto Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 17, 2002
- **Citations:** 277 F.3d 517; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 731; 2002 WL 62831
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Luttig
- **Judges:** Luttig, Traxler, King
- **Cited by:** 822 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494682

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding Rule 11(c)(1) error where the district court informed appellant that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years when the post-plea case of Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), directed that appellant face no mandatory m…
- holding that “[bjecause [defendant] did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review his alleged [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 errors under the standard applicable to forfeited error, i.e., assertions of error raised for the first time on appeal”
- finding the district court erred “in failing to specifically advise [Defendant] that he would not have cause to withdraw his guilty pleas if the court rejected the Government’s sentencing recommendation”
- explaining that a sentencing court may consider the presentence report (“PSR”) as a source of the factual basis to establish the crime, so long as the PSR is made part of the record on appeal
- holding that a misstatement of the maximum penalty did not affect a defendant’s substantial rights when he would have been subject to a far greater potential penalty if he proceeded to trial

## Opinion text

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
In United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150, 168-86 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc), I separately stated my views as to the proper interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 , and I will not repeat those views here. The court disagreed with those views, and its interpretation of section 841 is now binding. Because that interpretation is the law of the circuit I concur in the court’s analysis of the errors allegedly committed by the district court. Additionally, but only because Martinez faced imprisonment for a term of 140 years even absent Count One, I also concur in the court’s conclusion that Martinez has failed to carry his burden of showing that his substantial rights were affected by the district court’s errors.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494682. Public record. Not legal advice.