United States v. Robinson, 4th Cir. (2009)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Robinson, 4th Cir. (2009)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID MCDOWELL ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00087-RDB-1)
Submitted:
July 23, 2009
Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.
KING,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
July 31, 2009
HAMILTON,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David McDowell Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure
Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Robinson pled guilty, without the benefit of a
plea
agreement,
to
eleven
counts
of
wire
fraud
and
sixteen
counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343
(2006).
Robinson was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment, and
he timely appeals.
First, Robinson alleges that the district court erred
in accepting his guilty plea.
In the absence of a motion to
withdraw a guilty plea in the district court, we review for
plain error the adequacy of the guilty plea proceeding under
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
525 (4th Cir. 2002).
Our examination of the record shows that
the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule
11.
Robinsons
plea
was
knowingly,
voluntarily,
and
intelligently entered, and supported by a factual basis.
We
therefore find no error.
Robinson
further
argues
that
the
district
court
improperly calculated the amount of loss attributable to him.
In a fraud case, the Government must establish the amount of
loss for sentencing purposes by a preponderance of the evidence.
United States v. Pierce, 409 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2005).
This court reviews the amount of loss, to the extent that it is
a factual matter, for clear error.
F.3d
66,
71
(4th
Cir.
1993).
This
2
United States v. West, 2
deferential
standard
of
review requires reversal only if this court is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We find that
the district court did not clearly err in its loss calculations.
Next, Robinson contends that the district court erred
by
failing
to
downwardly
depart
from
the
guideline
range
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 5K1.13 (2007),
based on his diminished capacity.
This ruling is not reviewable
unless the district court was under the mistaken impression that
it lacked the authority to depart.
F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Brewer, 520
Here, the district court clearly
understood its authority to depart and simply declined to do so;
therefore, this claim is not cognizable on appeal.
Robinsons final claim, seeking credit for time served
for
violation
conviction,
of
lacks
supervised
merit.
release
The
imposed
district
court
on
was
an
earlier
under
no
obligation to credit time served on a sentence imposed in an
earlier conviction.
Accordingly,
sentence.
to
strike
we
affirm
Robinsons
convictions
and
We deny his motion for a writ of mandamus and motions
the
Governments
brief.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
