US v. Darian Robinson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARIAN KENDELL ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-LHT-DLH-4)
June 17, 2009
July 6, 2009
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Darian Kendell Robinson pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base ("crack"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). as a career offender to The district court sentenced Robinson 276 months' imprisonment. Robinson
timely appealed. Robinson's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and questioning Robinson's meritorious supplemental sentence, grounds brief, but for concluding that there filed and a were pro no se
Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm. Counsel first raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the Rule 11 plea colloquy. Our careful review of the record
convinces us that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Robinson's guilty plea. The court ensured that Robinson entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was supported by an individual factual basis. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,
119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Next, counsel asserts that the district court engaged in impermissible double counting by using a prior conviction 2
both to raise the statutory minimum sentence from ten years' imprisonment to twenty years' imprisonment pursuant to 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(b) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009), and 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006), and to classify Robinson as a career offender. that Robinson is not entitled to relief on this claim. We find United
States v. Quiroga, 554 F.3d 1150, 1158 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2175 (2009). Counsel erred in relying of also on questions Robinson's that whether 1990 the district court for
convictions as a
purposes offender (2006),
§ 4B1.1(a) an adequate
explanation for the sentence imposed.
Under USSG § 4A1.1(e)(1),
any sentence exceeding one year and one month that resulted in the defendant being incarcerated for a period of time within fifteen years of the commencement of the instant offense may be properly offender. at which considered in designating a defendant as a career
"Commencement of the instant offense" means the point the defendant first engaged in conduct that would
qualify as "relevant conduct."
USSG § 4A1.2 cmt. n.8.
that the district court properly considered the 1990 convictions in determining that Robinson was a career offender because
Robinson was released from incarceration for those offenses less than fifteen years before he committed the instant offense. 3
explanation within the
calculated guidelines range, a sentence that is entitled to an appellate presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, The record Robinson
551 U.S. 338, __, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007). reveals no nonspeculative basis for concluding
would have received a different sentence had the court engaged in a more thorough explanation at sentencing. v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 223-24 (4th Cir. 2005). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record for any we meritorious affirm that the issues for appeal court's his and have found This none. court of his Cf. United States
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such for a that a petition would be be
representation. was served on
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof the client. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
We have reviewed the claims in Robinson's pro supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?