United States v. Robinson , 82 F. App'x 322 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 03-4142
    ALLEN ROBINSON, a/k/a "A",
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-02-248)
    Submitted: November 19, 2003
    Decided: December 8, 2003
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Bruce W. Bannister, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David
    Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth Jean
    Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Green-
    ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    2                    UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Allen Robinson appeals his conviction based on a written plea
    agreement and sentence on a charge of conspiracy to possess with
    intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(B) (2000). After conducting a thorough Fed. R. Crim. P.
    11 colloquy, the district court accepted Robinson’s plea, and subse-
    quently sentenced him to 188 months’ imprisonment, five years of
    supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Robinson’s attor-
    ney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), claiming the facts supporting Robinson’s plea were
    insufficient, and challenging Robinson’s guilty plea and his career
    offender enhancement under USSG § 4B1.1(B), but concluding that
    there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Robinson filed a pro se
    supplemental brief claiming the government breached his plea agree-
    ment by failing to make a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion on his
    behalf, and challenging the indictment. In accordance with the
    requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire record and find
    no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We find no merit to Robinson’s specific claims on appeal. There
    were sufficient facts supporting Robinson’s guilty plea, including a
    statement from one of Robinson’s co-conspirators implicating Robin-
    son in the cocaine conspiracy. Moreover, the district court complied
    with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and Robinson was fully
    apprised of the crime to which he pled guilty, the rights he was waiv-
    ing by pleading guilty, the specific terms of the plea agreement,
    including the fact that the government had complete discretion
    regarding whether it would make a Rule 35(b) motion on Robinson’s
    behalf, and the sentence he faced. Robinson’s plea colloquy reveals
    that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered into.
    Moreover, Robinson satisfied the criteria for career offender
    enhancement under USSG § 4B1.1(B). Robinson was sentenced
    UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON                         3
    within a properly calculated guidelines range and consistent with stat-
    utory and constitutional law.
    Finally, Robinson asserts that his indictment was defective. We
    find Robinson’s challenge to the time frame in the indictment to be
    without merit because the indictment charges facts which show that
    the offense was committed within the statutory period of limitations.
    United States v. Young, 
    862 F.2d 815
    , 818-19 (10th Cir. 1988). Rob-
    inson’s challenge to the indictment’s failure to identify "persons
    unknown" is specious. Moreover, even if there were error, Robinson’s
    guilty plea effected a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects in the
    indictment. Tollett v. Henderson, 
    411 U.S. 258
    , 267 (1973). Our
    review of Robinson’s indictment reveals that it is valid. See United
    States v. Bolden, 
    325 F.3d 471
    , 490 (4th Cir. 2003).
    Accordingly, we affirm Robinson’s conviction and sentence. This
    court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
    to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
    If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
    such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this
    court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
    must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
    quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4142

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 322

Judges: Wilkinson, Gregory, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/8/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024