United States v. Richard Robinson, No. 21-1629 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Grasz, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ September 08, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1629 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Richard Darnell Robinson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________ Submitted: September 3, 2021 Filed: September 9, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Richard Robinson appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he plead guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Robinson, as there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); and the sentence was within the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual range, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (“A sentence which falls within the guideline range is presumed to be reasonable[.]”). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
