US v. Joseph Robinson, No. 12-4762 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4762 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH LAVERN ROBINSON, a/k/a Jo Jo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-01271-TLW-1) Submitted: May 23, 2013 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 28, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Lavern Robinson appeals his conviction and 180month sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base and five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Robinson s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court adequately complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when accepting Robinson s plea and whether Robinson s sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Robinson has not filed a supplemental brief. Finding no error, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. Where, as here, a defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). the district court substantially complied with Rule United Because 11 when accepting Robinson s plea, we find that the plea was knowing and voluntary and, therefore, final and binding. United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). To the extent Robinson seeks to appeal his sentence, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider his appeal. The district court sentenced Robinson in accordance with the sentencing agreement that he and the Government reached pursuant 2 to Fed. R. appellate Crim. review P. of a 11(c)(1)(C). sentence, The 18 statute U.S.C. § governing 3742(c) (2006), limits the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal a sentence to agreement which to he claims stipulated that his in a Rule sentence 11(c)(1)(C) was (1) plea imposed in violation of the law, (2) imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines, or (3) is greater sentence set forth in the plea agreement. lacks jurisdiction over the the United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005). Court than Otherwise, the appeal. Id. Here, Robinson s sentence was less than his statutory maximum and was precisely what he and the Government agreed was appropriate. Moreover, the sentence was not imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines because it was based on the parties Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and not on the district court s calculation of the Guidelines. Accordingly, review of Robinson s sentence is precluded by § 3742(c). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Robinson s conviction and dismiss his appeal of his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Robinson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 3 such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion thereof was served on Robinson. must state that a copy We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
