United States v. Robinson ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4425
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ZHIVAGO ANWAH ROBINSON, a/k/a Anwah, a/k/a Anwar,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:08-cr-00401-CMC-2)
Submitted: July 28, 2010 Decided: August 11, 2010
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United
States Attorney, James Chris Leventis, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Zhivago Anwah Robinson of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006),
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and possession with intent to
distribute and distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). At sentencing, the district court
determined that Robinson was a career offender under the
Sentencing Guidelines and sentenced him to 360 months of
imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 4B1.1(a) (2008). Robinson now appeals, and argues that the
district court erred in imposing a 360-month sentence because
his predicate offenses for the career offender designation
involved small amounts of drugs, no firearms, and no violence.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, using a
deferential “abuse of discretion” standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d
155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). After determining whether the
district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range, this court reviews the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into account the
totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Pauley, 511
2
F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). This court presumes a sentence within a
properly determined advisory Guidelines range is substantively
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007).
Robinson does not challenge the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence on appeal. Rather, he attacks
its substantive reasonableness, asserting that, under the
totality of the circumstances, the district court erred in
imposing a sentence within the properly-calculated Guidelines
range. He argues that, because the predicate offenses for his
career offender enhancement did not involve firearms, violence,
or a significant quantity of drugs, he did not merit the lengthy
sentence imposed by the district court.
We conclude, however, that Robinson has not rebutted
the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to Robinson’s
sentence. Allen, 491 F.3d at 193. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. 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
3