United States v. Donnie Robinson, Jr., No. 22-3336 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ March 21, 2023 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-3336 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Donnie Wayne Robinson, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: March 17, 2023 Filed: March 22, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Donnie Robinson, Jr. appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court has varied below the Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in not varying further). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we 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.
