United States v. Robinson, No. 18-1420 (8th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for first degree aggravated robbery under Minnesota Statutes 609.245 was a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines, resulting in a base offense level of 20.

The Supreme Court's decision in Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019), held that the term "physical force" in 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(i) includes the amount of force necessary to overcome a victim's resistance. The court held that Stokeling reinforced its precedent and was consistent with United States v. Libby, 880 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2018), which concluded that first degree aggravated robbery in Minnesota has as an element a threatened use of violent force.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's conviction for first-degree aggravated robbery under Minn. Stats. Sec. 609.245 was a crime of violence for sentencing purposes - see Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(a)(4)(A); Stokeling is consistent with this court's prior decision in U.S. v. Libby, 880 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2018), and the conclusion that first-degree aggravated robbery in Minnesota has as an element the threatened use of violent force.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1420 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Calvin Robinson, Jr., lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: February 11, 2019 Filed: June 10, 2019 [Published] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Calvin Robinson, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court1 determined that Robinson’s prior conviction for firstdegree aggravated robbery under Minnesota Statutes § 609.245 was a “crime of violence” under the sentencing guidelines, resulting in a base offense level of 20. See USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). The court calculated Robinson’s advisory guideline range at 51-63 months and sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment. Robinson argues on appeal that his prior Minnesota conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence, and that he should be resentenced based on a different guideline range calculated from a base offense level of 14. See id. § 2K2.1(a)(6). A state felony conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the “force clause” of the definition if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” Id. § 4B1.2(a)(1); see id. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.1). Under Minnesota law, simple robbery consists of taking personal property from a person through the use, or threatened imminent use, “of force against any person to overcome the person’s resistance or powers of resistance to, or to compel acquiescence in, the taking or carrying away of the property.” Minn. Stat. § 609.24. The more serious offense of first-degree aggravated robbery is defined as simple robbery committed while “armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon.” Id. § 609.245, subdiv. 1. In concluding that a conviction for first-degree aggravated robbery constituted a crime of violence, the district court relied on United States v. Libby, 880 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2018). Libby held that Minnesota simple robbery—and, as a result, the greater offense of first-degree aggravated robbery—qualifies as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act because it “contains as an element a threat of violent force.” Id. at 1015; see also 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). We reiterated this 1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- point in United States v. Pettis, 888 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2018), observing “that a conviction for simple robbery under Minnesota law requires proof of the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent force.” Id. at 965. Because the force clauses under the Act and the sentencing guidelines are identical, the reasoning of Libby and Pettis establishes that first-degree aggravated robbery in Minnesota qualifies as a crime of violence. The district court thus properly determined that Robinson’s base offense level was 20. See USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Robinson acknowledges these precedents, but hoped that the Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019), might undermine them. Stokeling held, however, that the term “physical force” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) “includes the amount of force necessary to overcome a victim’s resistance.” 139 S. Ct. at 555. In Taylor v. United States, No. 17-1760, slip op. (8th Cir. June 7, 2019), we explained that Stokeling “reinforced—and certainly did not cast doubt on—our decision in Pettis.” Id. at 5. Stokeling is also consistent with Libby and the conclusion that first-degree aggravated robbery in Minnesota has as an element a threatened use of violent force. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -3-

Primary Holding

Defendant's prior conviction for first degree aggravated robbery under Minnesota Statutes 609.245 was a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines, resulting in a base offense level of 20.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.