United States v. Krissy Robinson , 562 F. App'x 155 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4676
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KRISSY LYNETTE ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00343-TDS-2)
Submitted: March 10, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Rebecca Fitzpatrick, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Krissy Lynette Robinson appeals from her twenty-four
month sentence entered pursuant to her guilty plea to possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base. On appeal, she contends
that her sentence is both procedurally and substantively
unreasonable because the court failed to consider all of her
arguments for a more lenient sentence. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330,
335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we examine the sentence for
“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [2012] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When reviewing for
substantive reasonableness, we presume on appeal that a sentence
within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007)
(upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines
sentence).
2
In explaining a sentence, the district court is not
required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every
subsection, particularly when imposing a within-Guidelines
sentence.” United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court
must provide sufficient explanation to “demonstrate that it
‘considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis
for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’”
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Rita, 551 U.S. at 356). “The context surrounding a
district court’s explanation may imbue it with enough content
for [this court] to evaluate both whether the court considered
the § 3553(a) factors and whether it did so properly.” United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006).
As Robinson actually received the sentence that she
requested at sentencing, the parties agree that the issue of
whether the district court’s explanation of a sentence was
sufficient is reviewed for plain error. See Lynn, 592 F.3d at
578 (requiring a defendant to argue for a sentence other than
that imposed in order to preserve claim of error). We conclude
that the district court properly responded to Robinson’s
sentencing arguments and thoroughly explained the chosen
sentence. Although the court did not explicitly address each
statement raised in Robinson’s counsel’s argument, the court
3
clearly demonstrated that it had considered the entire case in
detail. The court explained that it determined that a sentence
at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range was appropriate
by balancing the serious nature of the offense against
Robinson’s lack of criminal history and relatively young age.
The court’s explanation demonstrated a reasoned consideration of
the § 3553 factors along with the advisory Guidelines range.
As such, Robinson cannot show plain error in the
district court’s consideration and explanation of her sentence.
She received the sentence she requested, and she makes no
reasonable argument that further explanation by the district
court would have resulted in the court’s conclusion that a lower
sentence was more appropriate. Powell, 650 F.3d at 395 (holding
that Powell failed to show plain error given that lack of
explanation had no prejudicial affect on his sentence).
Moreover, we find that Robinson has failed to overcome the
presumption that her sentence at the low end of the advisory
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4