United States v. Phillip Robinson, No. 14-3055 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's within-Guidelines-range sentence was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3055 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Phillip Gregory Robinson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque ____________ Submitted: March 25, 2015 Filed: March 31, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Phillip Robinson directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the within-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively unreasonable. Robinson has filed a pro se brief, arguing that the court abused its discretion by focusing solely on his criminal history in sentencing him. Upon review of the record before us, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision), we conclude that the court carefully considered numerous 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, properly explained its rationale for denying a downward variance, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); cf. United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 608 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of downward variance where court considered sentencing factors and properly explained rationale). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -2-
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.
