USA V. CASHMEN ROBINSON, No. 14-10422 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10422 D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00016-KJM v. MEMORANDUM* CASHMEN RAY ROBINSON, a.k.a. Cash Robinson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Cashmen Ray Robinson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291, and we affirm. Robinson contends that the district court erred by failing to depart under various Guidelines sections. He also argues that the district court should have varied downward in light of the circumstances surrounding his escape and eventual self-surrender. Our review of a district court’s decision not to depart or vary from the advisory Guidelines range is limited to determining whether the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 42122 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Robinson’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Robinson’s criminal history and the fact that his selfsurrender occurred over one year after his escape. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 14-10422
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.
