USA v. Terry Robinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-50681 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: ECP , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 05/23/2014 for Appellant Terry Dwayne Robinson [13-50681]

Case: 13-50681

Document: 00512616934

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/02/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 13-50681
Summary Calendar

FILED
May 2, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
TERRY DWAYNE ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:13-CR-111-1
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Terry Dwayne Robinson appeals the 120-month sentence he received
following his guilty plea conviction for aiding and abetting the possession with
intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base. In his sole argument, he
asserts that his sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of the
Attorney General’s institution of a new policy shortly after the date of his
sentencing; this policy advises prosecutors not to allege facts triggering a

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 13-50681

Document: 00512616934

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/02/2014

No. 13-50681
mandatory minimum sentence in drug cases unless there exist aggravating
circumstances.

Because Robinson was sentenced before the date of the

Attorney General’s memorandum, he is not entitled to relief under it. See
United States v. Barnes, 730 F.3d 456, 459-60 (5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the
policy specifically provides that it does not intend to confer any rights or
benefits in any proceeding. Id. As a result, Robinson is unable to show that
the district court committed a clear or obvious error in its imposition of a
within-guidelines sentence. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

2