United States v. Alford Robinson ( 2020 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0716n.06
Case No. 19-6482
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, )
FILED
Dec 23, 2020
)
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
ALFORD ROBINSON, ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Defendant-Appellant. )
_______________________________________ )
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. At his trial on an indictment as a felon in
possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Alford Robinson stipulated that he was a convicted
felon when he possessed two handguns. On February 21, 2019, the jury convicted him.
Prior to Robinson’s sentencing, the Supreme Court issued Rehaif v. United States,
139 S.Ct. 2191, 2195 (2019), which interpreted § 922(g) as requiring the prosecution to prove both
that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and knew that he belonged to the relevant category
of people barred from possessing a firearm, in this case, convicted felons. Robinson moved the
district court to vacate his conviction on several grounds, all stemming from the fact that the
prosecution had not expressly charged or proven that he knew he was a convicted felon.
The district court denied the motion, finding that any flaw in the indictment was ultimately
harmless, that the evidence at trial (particularly Robinson’s stipulation) was sufficient to prove that
Robinson knew he was a convicted felon, and that the error in the jury instruction was not plain
error. United States v. Robinson, No. 2:17-CR-20046, 2019 WL 7985173 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 13,
No. 19-6482, United States v. Robinson
2019); see also, e.g., United States v. Ward, 957 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2020) (analyzing virtually
identical arguments); United States v. Conley, 802 F. App’x 919 (6th Cir. 2020) (same).
After carefully reviewing the law, the parties’ arguments, and the record evidence, we
conclude that the district court correctly assessed the evidence at trial and correctly applied the law
to this evidence. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
2