United States v. Robinson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4817
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SATHIRE ZACH ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00507-AMD)
Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 31, 2007
Before WIDENER and MICAHEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur S. Cheslock, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sathire Zach Robinson pled guilty to possession of five
grams or more of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute, 21
U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000) (Count Two), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West
2000 & Supp. 2006) (Count Three). He received a sentence of ten
years imprisonment, four years supervised release, and a special
assessment of $200. No fine was imposed. Robinson’s attorney has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), raising two issues but stating that, in his view, there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Robinson has been informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a
brief. We affirm.
Appellate counsel first suggests that Robinson’s guilty
plea is invalid because the district court failed to inform him at
the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing that his plea would subject him to
a term of supervised release. While Rule 11 requires a district
court to inform a defendant that his sentence will include a term
of supervised release and explain its significance, and failure to
do so is error, the error is harmless if it does not affect the
defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Thorne, 153 F.3d
130, 133 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Good, 25 F.3d 218, 220
(4th Cir. 1994). Robinson concedes that, when he signed his plea
agreement, he was aware that his sentence of imprisonment would be
- 2 -
followed by a term of supervised release of up to five years, and
that, for the offenses to which he was pleading guilty, he faced a
minimum of ten years (consecutive five-year terms for each count)
and a maximum of life without parole. Because Robinson’s ten-year
sentence and four-year term of supervised release together are less
than either of the maximum sentences of forty years or life
imprisonment that Robinson was told he could receive, the error was
harmless. Thorne, 153 F.3d at 133; Good, 25 F.3d at 220.
Counsel also questions whether Robinson was correctly
sentenced under the applicable statutes and the advisory sentencing
guidelines. Robinson received the mandatory minimum five-year
sentence on each count; the sentence for the § 924(c) offense was
consecutive, as required by statute. The concurrent four-year
terms of supervised release were within the statutory range for
supervised release provided by statute. See 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(b)(1)(B) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1)
(2000). We conclude that the sentence was proper.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the 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 such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this
- 3 -
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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -