US v. Stefon Robinson, No. 12-4829 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4829 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEFON DONTA ROBINSON, a/k/a Twin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:11-cr-00007-FL-1) Submitted: April 19, 2013 Decided: April 25, 2013 Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lynne Louise Reid, L.L. REID LAW, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stefon Donta Robinson appeals the ninety-month sentence imposed by the district court following this court s remand for resentencing in light of Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2335 (2012). On appeal, Robinson contends that the district court violated Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011), by considering his need for drug treatment in imposing his sentence and that the court s error violated his substantial rights. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In district reviewing court did a not sentence, commit we any must ensure significant that the procedural error, such as failing to consider the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 [A] court s consideration of an improper § 3553(a) factor is likewise erroneous. United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2012); cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1506 (2013). [I]mprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting . . . rehabilitation. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) (2006); see Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2388-91. The district court may not impose or lengthen a prison sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment program or otherwise rehabilitation. Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2393. court error commits no by discussing 2 the to promote However, [a] opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or treatment or training programs. the benefits of specific Id. at 2392. We review for plain error Robinson s contention that the district court impermissible factor. 577 (4th Cir. improperly based his sentence on an See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 2010) (providing standard of review). To demonstrate plain error, Robinson must show that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. 732 (1993). In the United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, sentencing context, an error affects substantial rights if the defendant demonstrates that he would have received a lower sentence had the error not occurred. United States v. Knight, 606 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514, 518 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (stating that plain error affects substantial rights if defendant was subjected to sentence longer than that to which he would otherwise [have been] subject ). Upon court erred in review, noting we conclude Robinson s that, need for while drug the district treatment in imposing the upward variance, Robinson failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the court would have imposed a lesser sentence had it not considered that factor. See United States (requiring v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 3 2159, 2164 (2011) defendant to demonstrate reasonable probability that error affected outcome of proceeding). Accordingly, judgment. legal before we affirm the district court s amended We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
