United States v. Robinson

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-14-2006
USA v. Robinson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3939
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Robinson" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 896.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/896
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 05-3939
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GILBERT ROBINSON,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 03-CR-121-01)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 13, 2006
Before: FISHER, ALDISERT, and LOURIE,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 14, 2006)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
*
Honorable Alan D. Lourie, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit,
sitting by designation.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Gilbert Robinson (“Robinson”) appeals from the District Court’s decision
sentencing him to 292 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute in excess of
50 grams of cocaine base (crack) and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Because the
District Court did not err in determining that Robinson was a “career offender,” and it did
not abuse its discretion in denying his attempt to withdraw a guilty plea, we will affirm.
On May 19, 2003, Robinson, along with Frederick Jones (“Jones”), was pulled
over by state police troopers for speeding in his motor vehicle. During the stop, the
troopers noticed that Jones had “zigzag cigarette rolling papers,” which may be used to
smoke marijuana. The troopers asked for, and received, permission to search the vehicle.
Following their search, the troopers found cocaine base (crack), heroin, marijuana, phone
records, a handgun, and drug paraphernalia. A further investigation led to the discovery
of additional drugs and drug paraphernalia in two motel rooms that Robinson had been
occupying at the time of his arrest.
On May 5, 2004, pursuant to a prior plea agreement, Robinson pled “guilty” to one
count of conspiracy to distribute over 50 grams of cocaine base (crack) and heroin. Prior
to his sentencing, the United States Probation Office conducted an investigation that
concluded that Robinson was a “career offender.” According to the Probation Office,
Robinson was convicted in 1982 of armed robbery (the “1982 offense”).1 Robinson
1
Robinson was also convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled
substance in 1989. Robinson, however, does not dispute in this appeal whether that
2
served 5 years in prison for that offense and was released in 1987 on parole. In 1991,
Robinson violated his parole and was re-incarcerated until his release in 1993. On
May 24, 2005, the District Court conducted a hearing and sentenced Robinson to 292
months of imprisonment. Robinson timely appealed that sentence, and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
On appeal, Robinson argues that the District Court erred by classifying him as a
“career offender” in view of his 1982 offense. According to Robinson, the Court should
not have counted the 1982 offense in determining his criminal history level because it
occurred prior to the 15-year period provided in the United States Sentencing Guidelines
§ 4A.1.2 (“Guidelines”). It does not matter, Robinson asserts, that he was re-incarcerated
and served additional prison time during the past 15 years for violating his parole on the
1982 offense. Robinson also contends that the Court engaged in improper fact finding
because it determined, rather than having a jury find beyond a reasonable doubt, that
Robinson had his parole revoked, was 18 years of age at the time that he committed the
1982 offense, and that the current offense involved cocaine base (crack) and heroin.
Applying the correct criminal history level, Robinson asserts that he should have been
sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment, not 292 months.
Robinson also argues that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his
request to withdraw his guilty plea. Robinson contends that he demonstrated a fair and
offense was properly counted towards his “career offender” status.
3
just reason for the request and that the government would not be prejudiced by the
withdrawal. According to Robinson, he purportedly entered into the plea agreement
because he believed that he would, in consideration for his guilty plea, receive a prison
sentence between 6 and 7 years, less than the 292 months to which he was sentenced.
We agree with the government that the District Court did not err in determining
that Robinson was a “career offender.” As an initial matter, the Guidelines explicitly
provide that the prison term that Robinson served for violating his parole on the 1982
offense, which partly occurred within the past 15 years, can be counted in establishing his
status as a “career offender.” See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.2(e)(1) (stating “count any prior
sentence of imprisonment . . . that resulted in the defendant being incarcerated during any
part of such fifteen-year period”) and (k)(2)(B) (stating that “[r]evocation of . . . parole
. . . may affect the time period under which certain sentences are counted as provided in
§ 4A1.1(d)(2) and (e)”). Thus, the Court did not commit legal error in considering
Robinson’s 1982 offense as contributing to his “career offender” status.
Moreover, the District Court did not clearly err in making factual findings
necessary for Robinson’s sentencing because those facts were supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir.
2006) (stating that “[a]s before Booker, the standard of proof under the guidelines for
sentencing facts continues to be preponderance of the evidence”); United States v. Miller,
417 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 2004) (same). In view of the record before us, a
preponderance of the evidence supported the District Court’s finding that Robinson had
4
his parole revoked in 1991, he was incarcerated for his 1982 offense within the past 15
years, he was at least 18 years of age at the time he committed the 1982 offense, and that
his current offense, to which he pled guilty, involved controlled substances, viz., cocaine
base (crack) and heroin.
We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
accept Robinson’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. It is axiomatic that “[o]nce
accepted, a guilty plea may not automatically be withdrawn at the defendant’s whim.”
United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 811, 815 (3d Cir. 2001). A defendant must have a fair
and just reason for doing so, and Robinson has articulated no such reason in his brief to
this Court. Id. Rather, the record supports the District Court’s observation that Robinson
sought to withdraw his guilty plea only after he was found to be a “career offender.” As
the Court recognized, that is not an adequate basis to justify Robinson’s withdrawal of his
guilty plea. Id. (stating that “[a] shift in defense tactics, a change of mind, or the fear of
punishment are not adequate reasons to impose on the government the expense, difficulty,
and risk of trying a defendant who has already acknowledged his guilt by pleading guilty”
(emphasis added)). There is also nothing in the record to support Robinson’s contention,
other than his statement during the sentencing hearing, that he was promised that he
would be given 6 or 7 years of imprisonment in exchange for his “guilty” plea. Thus, the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to accept Robinson’s unsupported
explanation as to why he now seeks to withdraw his “guilty” plea.
5
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s decision sentencing Robinson to
292 months of imprisonment.
6