United States v. Adorian Robinson ( 2020 )

Case: 19-10353 Document: 00515476482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-10353 July 2, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ADORIAN RASHAD ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-288-1
Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Adorian Rashad Robinson pleaded guilty to one count of brandishing a
firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, namely Hobbs Act
Robbery. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced him
above the guideline range to a 180-month term of imprisonment and ordered
that his sentence be served consecutive to his yet-to-be-imposed state
sentences. Robinson does not challenge the length of his sentence but argues
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-10353 Document: 00515476482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2020
No. 19-10353
that, because he is only 19 years old, stacking his federal sentence upon
unknown future state sentences rendered his federal sentence unreasonable.
The Supreme Court has held that a district court has discretion under
18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) to order that a federal sentence run consecutively to an
anticipated state sentence. See Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 236-37
(2012). Although Robinson directs us to “the considerations discussed in the
dissenting opinion in [Setser],” he does not identify or explain the
considerations applicable here or why this case warrants a different result.
Robinson has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by
ordering that his sentence run consecutive to his anticipated state sentence,
and he does not otherwise argue that it is substantively unreasonable. See id.;
United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). The
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2