US v. Trevor Robinson, No. 14-4378 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4378 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TREVOR A. ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00077-BR-1) Submitted: December 19, 2014 Decided: January 8, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Halerie F. Mahan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Erin C. Blondel, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Trevor A. Robinson appeals the forty-six month, within-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) (2012). to explain its He argues that the district court failed chosen sentence substantively unreasonable. We review sentences for abuse-of-discretion States, U.S. district court including 38, 41 committed improper that the sentence is We affirm. deferential 552 and reasonableness standard.” (2007). no We calculation of Gall first “‘significant “under v. ensure the United that procedural a the error,’” Guidelines range, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, United and inadequate States v. Lynn, explanation 592 F.3d of 572, the 575 sentence (4th imposed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Robinson explanation of first the challenges sentence. In the district evaluating the court’s sentencing court’s explanation of a selected sentence, we have consistently held that, while the district court must consider the statutory factors and explain the sentence, it need not “robotically tick through” every § 3353(a) factor on the record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence within 2 the properly calculated Guidelines range. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). At the same time, the district court “must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. While the “individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court adequately explained its decision to impose a within-Guidelines sentence when it rejected Robinson’s request for a downward departure. The court considered several of the § 3553(a) factors within this discussion, including the nature and circumstances of the current offense; Robinson’s history and characteristics; and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to provide deterrence respect for the law. prior federal and just punishment, and to promote The district court noted that Robinson’s convictions were serious and that he had demonstrated disrespect for the law when he continued to use marijuana upon his return to the United States. The court rejected Robinson’s argument that his anticipated removal from the United States following service of the sentence weighed in favor of a lower sentence, pointing out that this concern applied to all immigration cases and that there needed to be 3 some punishment for returning to the United that States his after deportation. Next, Robinson argues sentence is substantively unreasonable. Substantive reasonableness determined considering totality the “Any by sentence Guidelines that range is is the within or of below presumptively a is circumstances. properly [substantively] calculated reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). We conclude that Robinson has failed to rebut presumed reasonableness of his within-Guidelines sentence. district court including the Guidelines assessed the applicable sentence was § totality 3553(a) necessary. of the factors, The the The circumstances, in concluding court noted a that Robinson had quickly returned to the United States after his prior deportation and had demonstrated a disregard for the laws of this country through his criminal record and admissions at sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 4 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
