USA v. Isaiah Robinson
OPINION filed : AFFIRMED; denying motion to dismiss - jurisdiction as moot [4115072-2] filed by Mr. John Patrick Grant, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. R. Guy Cole , Jr., Authorizing Circuit Judge; John M. Rogers, Circuit Judge and Edmund A. Sargus , Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0518n.06
Jul 26, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ISAIAH LAMAR ROBINSON,
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
COLE and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; SARGUS, District Judge.*
COLE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Isaiah Lamar Robinson appeals his 828-month
sentence imposed by the district court following a guilty plea. We AFFIRM.
On the second day of his trial, Robinson pleaded guilty to six counts of a federal indictment
based on his armed robbery of three Shell gas stations in Georgetown, Kentucky. Counts one, three,
and five charged Robinson with robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and counts
two, four, and six with discharging a firearm during the commission of a federal crime of violence
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). For each of counts one, three, and five, Robinson’s guidelines
range was 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment, and the district court imposed a sentence of 108
months for each, to run concurrently. Count two carried a mandatory minimum of 10 years, and
The Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
United States v. Robinson
counts four and six each had mandatory minimums of 25 years, totaling a mandatory-minimum
sentence of 60 years on the § 924(c) violations. The district court imposed the mandatory-minimum
sentences on counts two, four, and six and ordered that they run consecutive to each other and the
108-month sentence, resulting in a total sentence of 828 months of imprisonment.
On appeal, Robinson contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the
60-year sentence consecutive to the 108 months imposed as a result of counts one, three, and five.
Robinson argues that a 60-year sentence was sufficient and that the district court should have ordered
that the sentences run concurrently. However, “the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) forbids a
district court to direct that a term of imprisonment under that statute run concurrently with any other
term of imprisonment, whether state or federal.” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 11 (1997).
Thus, the district court did not err in imposing Robinson’s § 924(c) sentences consecutive to the 108month sentence. To the extent that Robinson also claims that the imposition of consecutive
sentences for each § 924(c) violation was in error, this argument is also foreclosed. See United
States v. Clark, 634 F.3d 874, 877 (6th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he district court did not err in imposing
separate, consecutive, sentences for each of the section 924(c) violations.” (citing Abbott v. United
States, --- U.S. ---, 131 S. Ct. 18, 22 (2010))).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court. The government’s
motion to dismiss Robinson’s appeal is DENIED as moot.
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?