United States v. Robinson , 264 F. App'x 328 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SEAN ANTHONY ROBINSON, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-204-HEH)
Submitted: February 11, 2008 Decided: February 14, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and William L.
OSTEEN, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District
of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William J. Doran, III, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck
Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Roderick C. Young, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Sean Robinson of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or
more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000)
(“Count One”), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000) (“Count Three”). The
district court sentenced Robinson to 420 months’ imprisonment on
Count One and the statutory maximum of 120 months’ imprisonment on
Count Three, both sentences to be served concurrently. Robinson
appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions and the district court’s finding that Robinson was
responsible for 1767.2 grams of cocaine base at sentencing was
clearly erroneous. Finding no error, we affirm.
We will affirm the jury’s verdict if substantial evidence
existed in the record to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315
U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In determining whether the evidence in the
record is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government and inquire whether there is evidence
that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to establish a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996)
(en banc). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do
not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume the jury
resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the
- 2 -
Government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.
1998).
In order to establish Robinson participated in a drug
conspiracy as alleged in Count One, the Government was required to
prove: (1) an agreement between two or more people to violate the
law; (2) knowledge of the essential objective of the conspiracy;
(3) knowing and voluntary involvement; and (4) interdependence
among the alleged conspirators. United States v. Stewart, 256 F.3d
231, 250 (4th Cir. 2001). In order to establish Robinson’s
violation of § 922(g)(1) as alleged in Count Three, the Government
was required to prove: (1) Robinson previously had been convicted
of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year;
(2) Robinson knowingly possessed the firearm; and (3) the
possession was in or affecting commerce, because the firearm had
traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. See United States v.
Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). After
thoroughly reviewing the trial transcript, we conclude substantial
evidence supported the jury’s verdict on both counts.
We review the district court’s calculation of the
quantity of drugs attributable to Robinson for sentencing purposes
for clear error. See United States v. Tucker, 473 F.3d 556, 560
(4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review); United States v.
Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999). In calculating drug
amounts, the court may consider any relevant information, provided
- 3 -
that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to
support its accuracy. United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1021
(4th Cir. 1992). After reviewing the materials before us on
appeal, we conclude the district court properly adopted the
probation officer’s recommended calculation of drug quantity. We
agree with the district court that this was a conservative estimate
of drug quantities associated with Robinson’s crimes.
Accordingly, we affirm Robinson’s convictions and
sentence. 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 -