United States v. Robinson , 281 F. App'x 193 ( 2008 )

Filed: June 17, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5207
(1:06-cr-00074-WDQ)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAVON ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed June 12, 2008, as follows:
On page 2, line 7 -- the word “that” is corrected to read
“than.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAVON ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00074-WDQ)
Submitted: June 4, 2008 Decided: June 12, 2008
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Q. Butler, BUTLER LEGAL GROUP, PLLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kwame J.
Manley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tavon Robinson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute a mixture of cocaine, cocaine base, and
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court
then sentenced Robinson to 324 months’ imprisonment. Robinson
appealed, contending that the district court’s findings that at
least fifteen but not more than fifty kilograms of cocaine was
reasonably foreseeable to him, and that he was a leader in the
conspiracy, were clearly erroneous. Robinson also asserts that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel.
We review the district court’s calculation of the
quantity of drugs attributable to Robinson for sentencing purposes
for clear error.* See United States v. Tucker, 473 F.3d 556, 560
(4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review); United States v.
Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999). In calculating drug
amounts, the court may consider any relevant information, provided
that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to
support its accuracy. United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1021
(4th Cir. 1992). Because Robinson admitted to the drug quantities
attributed to him under oath, we conclude that the district court
*
Robinson also challenges whether the district court erred in
failing to differentiate between cocaine and crack in determining
the base offense level. However, there is no merit to this
argument as the district court did not calculate Robinson’s
advisory guideline range based on crack.
- 2 -
properly adopted the probation officer’s recommended calculation of
drug quantity.
Next, the district court’s determination of the
defendant’s role in the offense is also reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002). A
four-level adjustment for role in the offense is appropriate when
“the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity
that involved five or more participants or was otherwise
extensive.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1(a).
Robinson admitted under oath that he was an organizer and leader in
this criminal activity that involved more than five participants.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not clearly
err in determining that the enhancement based on Robinson’s
leadership role was warranted.
Finally, Robinson argues that counsel provided
ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the
amount and kind of narcotics used to calculate his advisory
guideline range. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are
generally not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v.
King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for
adequate development of the record, a defendant must bring his
claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. See id.; United
States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An exception
exists when the record conclusively establishes ineffective
- 3 -
assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th
Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at 295. Our review of the record does
not conclusively show that counsel was ineffective. We therefore
decline to consider Robinson’s allegations of ineffective
assistance of counsel, as he may raise them in a § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm Robinson’s conviction and
sentence. 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
- 4 -