Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-4807
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-01068-HMH-2)
Submitted:
Decided:
Russell Warren Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Greenville,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio
Tejada-Martinez
pled
guilty,
pursuant
to
with
(Count
intent
One).
Tejada-Martinezs
to
The
advisory
distribute,
21
district
Guidelines
U.S.C.
court
range
as
846
calculated
87-108
months
the
Guidelines
range.
See
USSG
5G1.1(c)(2).
On
v.
California,
386
U.S.
738
(1967),
suggesting
that
the
safety
Tejada-Martinez
valve
was
provision
notified
of
in
his
USSG
right
5C1.2(a)(1-5).
to
file
pro
se
brief.
In criminal cases,
rules
that
subject-matter jurisdiction.
do
not
affect
this
courts
Appellate
Rule
jurisdiction.).
this
court
government
4(b)
do
not
affect
subject
matter
when
the
or
sua
Rule
4(b)
sponte
time
when
bar
is
judicial
invoked
by
the
resources
or
750
(10th
Cir.
2008).
However,
in
this
case,
the
government has not invoked the Rule 4(b) time bar or moved to
dismiss the appeal as untimely.
fifty-two
merits
days
of
the
was
not
case
inordinate,
will
not
and
consideration
waste
judicial
of
the
resources.
270
(4th
Cir.
2007).
However,
the
government
has
not
waiver
is
dispositive
of
this
appeal.
See
id.
at
271
court
to
perform
the
required
Anders
review).
court
respect
to
the
had
before
safety
it
valve
reliable
provision,
information
the
that
requirement
defendant
has
the
for
eligibility
burden
of
showing
under
that
5C1.2(a).
he
meets
The
all
five
United
for
clear
error.
Henry,
2012
WL
745536
at
*6.
We are satisfied
that the district court did not clearly err in so finding, and
in deciding that he did not qualify for a sentence below the
mandatory minimum pursuant to the safety valve provision.
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
filed,
believes
but
counsel
that
such
petition
would
be
Finally, we dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and