United States v. Robinson , 172 F. App'x 526 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4296
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DIONNE REBECCA ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-4297
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DIONNE REBECCA ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge; James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-41;
CR-04-385)
Submitted: March 13, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In January 2001, Dionne Rebecca Robinson pled guilty
pursuant to a plea agreement to embezzlement of funds, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 656 (2000). The district court sentenced Robinson
to four months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.
In November 2004, after Robinson’s release from incarceration but
while she was still on supervised release status, Robinson pled
guilty to falsifying a court order, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1506 (2000); and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341(2000). The district court sentenced Robinson to eighteen months’
imprisonment on the convictions to which she pled guilty in 2004
(No. 05-4297). Further, the district court revoked Robinson’s
supervised release on her 2001 conviction and imposed a four-month
term of imprisonment, to run consecutive to her eighteen-month
sentence (No. 05-4296). Robinson timely appealed.
Robinson’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his
opinion, there exist no meritorious grounds for appeal. However,
counsel addresses whether the district court sentenced Robinson in
an unlawfully harsh manner with respect to both the revocation of
her supervised release and her 2004 criminal offenses. Although
notified of her right to do so, Robinson elected not to file a pro
se supplemental brief.
- 3 -
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing a four-month term of imprisonment upon
revocation of Robinson’s supervised release. (No. 05-4296). See
United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995).
Moreover, the sentence was within the recommended guideline range
and the statutory maximum range, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000);
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2000), and it was
reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed on
supervised release.
Robinson’s sentence for her 2004 offenses (No. 05-4297)
likewise was reasonable. After the Supreme Court’s decision in
Booker, a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both
reasonable and within the statutorily prescribed range. Hughes,
401 F.3d at 546-47; see also Green, 436 F.3d at 455-56. This court
has further stated that “while we believe that the appropriate
circumstances for imposing a sentence outside the guideline range
will depend on the facts of individual cases, we have no reason to
doubt that most sentences will continue to fall within the
applicable guideline range.” United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208,
219 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 668 (2005). We find the
- 4 -
district court properly calculated the guideline range and
appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory. The court
sentenced Robinson only after considering and examining the
sentencing guidelines and the factors set forth in § 3553(a). The
court also clearly stated that it deemed the sentence appropriate
under the circumstances. Based on these factors, and because the
court sentenced Robinson within the applicable guideline range and
the statutory maximum, we find that Robinson’s sentence of eighteen
months’ imprisonment is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw from further representation. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her
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 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 adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 5 -