US v. Curtis Robinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal in part [998928833-2] Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00357-BR-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998964186].. [12-4368]

Appeal: 12-4368

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/22/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4368

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CURTIS JEFFREY ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00357-BR-2)

Submitted:

September 25, 2012

Decided:

October 22, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Alan D. Campbell, S. Hamilton, Massachusetts, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4368

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/22/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Curtis Jeffrey Robinson appeals the 262-month sentence
imposed

by

the

district

court

following

his

guilty

plea,

pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to commit
Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence
and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2 (2006).

On appeal, Robinson’s counsel

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967),

asserting

that

there

are

no

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal but questioning whether the district court’s sentence was
proper.

Robinson was advised of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief but did not file one.
filed

a

motion

to

dismiss

Robinson’s

The Government has

appeal

based

appellate waiver provision in the plea agreement.

on

the

We grant the

Government’s motion in part and dismiss Robinson’s appeal of his
sentence, and we deny the Government’s motion in part and affirm
Robinson’s convictions.
We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate
rights.

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.

2005).

“A defendant may waive his right to appeal if that

waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to
forgo the right to appeal.”

United States v. Amaya-Portillo,

423

2005)

F.3d

427,

430

(4th

Cir.

2

(internal

quotation

marks

Appeal: 12-4368

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/22/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

omitted); see United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th
Cir. 2002) (providing standard).

Generally, if the district

court fully questions the defendant about the waiver during the
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 plea colloquy, the waiver
is valid and enforceable.

United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d

137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005).

We will enforce a valid waiver so

long as “the issue being appealed is within the scope of the
waiver.”

Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

Robinson’s

waiver

intelligent.
Turning

to

of

Thus,
the

scope

appellate

the
of

waiver
the

rights
is

waiver,

valid
we

was
and

knowing

and

enforceable.

conclude

that

the

sentencing issues raised in the Anders brief fall within the
scope of the appellate waiver provision.

Robinson was sentenced

to 262 months’ imprisonment, a sentence at the low end of the
Guidelines range that was established at the sentencing hearing.
Therefore, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part
and dismiss this portion of the appeal.
The waiver provision does not, however, preclude our
review of Robinson’s convictions pursuant to Anders.

Robinson

does not assert any error in the district court’s acceptance of
his guilty plea.

We have reviewed the plea colloquy for plain

error and have found none.

See United States v. Martinez, 277

F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard); see also
3

Appeal: 12-4368

United

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/22/2012

States

v.

Olano,

507

Pg: 4 of 4

U.S.

725,

732

(1993)

(detailing

plain error standard).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no unwaived and potentially meritorious
issues for review.

We therefore affirm Robinson’s convictions.

This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Robinson requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Robinson.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4