United States v. Cecil Robinson ( 2024 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3438
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Cecil Jason Robinson
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: September 23, 2024
Filed: October 9, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After a jury found Cecil Robinson guilty of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the district court1 determined that he was an armed
1
The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
career criminal and sentenced him to 235 months' imprisonment. Robinson challenges
the court's conclusion that he was an armed career criminal. We affirm.
The Armed Career Criminal Act, or ACCA, subjects convicted felons who
possessed a firearm to a fifteen-year minimum prison sentence if they have had three
or more previous convictions for violent felonies that were "committed on occasions
different from one another." See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Robinson had four relevant
convictions under Missouri law—two for second-degree robbery, see Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 569.030 (2013) (now codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.025), and two for unlawful
use of a weapon, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4). We have held in previous cases
that second-degree robbery, see United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir.
2018) (en banc), and unlawful use of a weapon under § 571.030.1(4), see United
States v. Pryor, 927 F.3d 1042, 1043–44 (8th Cir. 2019), are violent felonies under
the ACCA.
Robinson nonetheless maintains that two of those convictions should really
count as only one for purposes of the ACCA because he was arrested for them on the
same date and convicted of them on the same date. We have rejected this argument
before, see United States v. Stowell, 82 F.4th 607, 609 (8th Cir. 2023) (en banc), since
the ACCA focuses on when the defendant committed the offenses, not when he was
arrested or convicted. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). In any event, even if Robinson had
only three predicate convictions rather than four, he would still qualify as an armed
career criminal under the ACCA.
There is some question whether Robinson can be considered an armed career
criminal given that the court, rather than a jury, found that he had committed his
predicate offenses on different occasions. It is true that the Supreme Court recently
held that a jury must resolve the "ACCA's occasions inquiry unanimously and beyond
a reasonable doubt." See Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840, 1852 (2024). But
any error that the district court committed here was harmless. See Stowell, 82 F.4th
-2-
at 610. We held in Stowell that it was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that "no
reasonable juror could find that Stowell committed his offenses on the same occasion,
considering they occurred days apart and involved different victims." See id.Likewise, Robinson committed his predicate offenses in 1996, 1997, 2013, and 2015
at different locations and against different victims, so we believe that any reasonable
jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson committed these
offenses on different occasions. Erlinger does not cast doubt on Stowell's conclusion
that this error can be harmless. See Erlinger, 144 S. Ct. at 1860–61 (Roberts, C.J.,
concurring); see also United States v. Johnson, 114 F.4th 913, 917 (7th Cir. 2024).
Robinson adverts without elaborating to two other contentions in his brief. The
first challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Robinson appears to
argue that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court erroneously
determined that he is an armed career criminal. But as we have already said, the court
did not err in that determination. Robinson also briefly suggests that the evidence to
support his conviction was insufficient, as "he was never found in possession of the
firearm" that led to his conviction. But a police officer named Bradley Overton
testified that he saw someone open the driver's door to a pickup truck and throw a gun
near an interstate ramp. He identified the driver as Robinson. Overton pursued the
truck and told another officer where to find the gun. That officer testified that he
found the gun where Overton said it would be. Overton also testified that he pursued
Robinson until Robinson parked at a mall, and there was no one other than Robinson
in the truck. This evidence is manifestly sufficient to support the conviction.
Affirmed. We also deny Robinson's pro se motions to supplement the record
and for release from custody.
______________________________
-3-