US v. Robert Sampson, No. 14-4744 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4744 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ROBERT NEIL SAMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00357-RWT-1) Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: November 10, 2015 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lawlor, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Arun G. Rao, Mara Z. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, Gustav W. Eyler, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Neil Sampson pled guilty to conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, interference with commerce by robbery, violence. and He brandishing appeals, contends firearm asserting sentence was unreasonable. 1 Sampson a that during his a crime upward of variance We affirm. that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to meaningfully consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors; failed to consider Sampson’s chief argument (his age, 53 at the time of sentencing); failed to explain why a variance sentence served the purposes of sentencing while a Sentencing Guidelines sentence did sentence with not; and details erroneously about considered by the procedural and substantive discretion standard. (2007). supported Sampson’s Guidelines. We offenses review reasonableness its a under variance that were sentence an abuse for of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 The first step requires this court to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider 1 Sampson was sentenced to 300 months Sentencing Guidelines range was 205-235 months. 2 in prison; his the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an Guidelines range. Id. of significant explanation for any deviation from the If we conclude that a sentence is free procedural error, we then substantive reasonableness of the sentence. consider the United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). In the case of a variance or departure, “‘a major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one,’” United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 113 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal alterations omitted) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50)), and appellate explanation States v. courts supporting McClung, 483 a apply greater substantial F.3d 273, 277 scrutiny variance, (4th Cir. to see an United 2007). A sentencing court’s explanation falters if it fails to provide an individualized assessment of the facts before it when imposing the sentence. Here, Lymas, 781 F.3d at 113-14. the sufficient. district court’s variance explanation was Sampson was sentenced to a term of imprisonment approximately 30% higher than the top of his total Guidelines range. level Thus, while the court was required to provide a higher of detail discussion requirement. of in its Sampson’s explanation, crime and the court’s background lengthy met that While the court relied heavily on the seriousness 3 of the crime and the failure of the Guidelines to adequately punish the crime, the court factors. For instance, deterrence and protection also the considered court of other the considered public. statutory the The need court for also examined Sampson’s background, the affect of his plea agreement, and his unpredictable criminal behavior. Moreover, the court explicitly referenced each of the § 3553(a) factors and explained how the offenses at issue went far beyond behavior most and needed discuss factor. to by lasting injuries pointed specifically determining robberies to that be his Sampson’s to age, the Sampson’s criminal deterred. involving the the court victims. unusual behavior While extremely was The court background in unpredictable was court violent and did clearly not explicitly aware of that Furthermore, the court expressly rejected a Guidelines sentence, noting that it was too far away from the statutory maximum given the circumstances of the crime. Accordingly, the district court’s articulation of its reasons for the variance belies Sampson’s claim of procedural error. Turning to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we examine the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 383 4 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 305 (2014). vary outside deference. the Id. Guidelines range are still Sentences that entitled to due When reviewing a variance or departure, we consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision respect to the extent range. United States v. McNeill, 598 F.3d 161, 166 (4th Cir. 2010). It is within the sentencing court’s discretion to accord more weight to the to of impose the such a divergence aggravating factors sentence from and the decide and with sentencing that the sentence imposed would serve the § 3553(a) factors on the whole. Gall, 552 U.S. at 56-59; see also United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011) (observing that “district courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given each of the Here, the court § 3553(a) factors”) (citation omitted). recognized its obligations to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the § 3553(a) factors. Regarding the various § 3553(a) factors, the court detailed the nature and circumstances of the offenses, noting that Sampson benefitted from a plea agreement that resulted in the dismissal of various counts. The court reflected on Sampson’s prior criminal history, concluding that there were numerous uncounted charges for serious crimes. convictions and many dismissed The court found that Sampson had managed to recover from his youthful criminal behavior but that 5 he returned to crime after a very long period of time. The court found that the Guidelines range was insufficient in this case, based upon the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect and deter the public. We conclude that the district court carefully considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors and tied them to the increased sentence. for a While Sampson’s Guidelines range included departures victim sustaining a serious bodily injury, physical restraint, carjacking, the involvement of controlled substances, and the loss amount, it was within the court’s discretion to determine, as it did, that the totality of Sampson’s criminal behavior, which included carefully planned and very dangerous robberies causing lasting impact to both victims and businesses, was not fully accounted for by the Guidelines. district court did not give excessive weight We find that the to any single factor, but instead considered all the applicable factors. Thus, we affirm Sampson’s sentence. Sampson has filed a motion to file a pro se supplemental brief raising claims of ineffective assistance and challenging the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. 2 Because Sampson is represented by counsel who has filed a merits brief, he is not entitled to file a pro 2 We grant Sampson’s motion for reconsideration challenging the striking of the proposed brief from the docket. 6 se supplemental brief. Accordingly, we deny his motion. See United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011) (denying motion to file pro se supplemental brief because the defendant was represented by counsel). oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before We dispense with contentions this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
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.
