US v. David Robinson, No. 22-6790 (4th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6790 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ANTHONY ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant, No. 22-6792 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ANTHONY ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00341-GLR-1; 1:20-cr-00424-GLR-1) Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Sutherland Clark, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: David Anthony Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). A district court abuses its discretion when it “acts arbitrarily or irrationally, . . . fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, . . . relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or . . . commits an error of law.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluding they did not support granting Robinson’s motions. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.