US v. John Robinson, No. 14-4073 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4073 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN MICHAEL ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00194-TDS-1) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted John Michael Robinson of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). He received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment. On appeal, Robinson argues the interstate commerce element of § 922(g), as applied to him, is unconstitutional, under the Commerce Clause of the United States improperly Constitution, excluded minimum sentence. We jury the that the evidence of Robinson s the preserved statute de novo. McFadden, 753 F.3d 432, 439 (4th Cir. 2014). that the district of the court mandatory We affirm. review constitutionality from and precedent of this Circuit challenge United to the States v. Robinson concedes forecloses his current argument that evidence that the firearm traveled across state lines was commerce. insufficient to prove an effect on interstate See United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 137 38 (4th Cir. 2001) (rejecting argument made in reliance on Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), that transport across state lines was insufficient to establish possession in or affecting interstate commerce); United States v. Wells, 98 F.3d 808, 810 11 (4th Cir. 1996) (rejecting similar argument made in reliance on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)). 2 One panel of this court may not overrule the precedent set by a prior panel. United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n.3 (4th Cir. 2010). Next, Robinson contends that the district court erred in prohibiting him from testifying as to the mandatory minimum sentence he faced if convicted of the crime charged. We review rulings abuse concerning the admission of evidence for of discretion. See United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 212 (4th Cir. 2005). It is settled law that it is the exclusive function of the jury to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and the sole province of the court to determine punishment. United States v. Goodface, 835 F.2d 1233, 1237 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Davidson, 367 F.2d 60, 63 (6th Cir. 1966). Informing a jury of the penalty for an offense is prejudicial, and breach of this reversible error. well-grounded principle may constitute United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1429 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Greer, 620 F.2d 1383, 1384 (10th Cir. 1980). Courts have therefore uniformly held that juries must reach a verdict without knowledge of possible sentences. Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35, 40 (1975); Meredith, 824 F.2d at 1429. There is simply no authority to support Robinson s contention that the jury should have been informed of the fifteen-year sentence facing him upon conviction of the crime charged. See Goodface, 835 F.2d at 1237 (holding the jury should not be instructed that the defendant faced a 3 mandatory minimum for possession of a handgun as the jury s duty is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused solely on the basis of the evidence adduced at trial without considering possible sentences). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the 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.
