Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-03-2022
Case Style:
United States of America v. Britney Robinson
Case Number: 18-4399
Judge: Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges
Court:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Clarksburg.
Plaintiff's Attorney: William J. Powell, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Zelda E.
Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY
Defendant's Attorney:
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Description:
Richmond, VA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with maintaining a drug-involved premises.
Robinson first contends that the district court erred in failing to credit her for
acceptance of responsibility. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2016).
We review the district court’s denial of the acceptance of responsibility adjustment for
clear error, United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 678 (4th Cir. 2011), but its
determination that it lacked the authority to grant the adjustment de novo, United States v.
Hargrove, 478 F.3d 195, 198 (4th Cir. 2007). We accord “great deference to the district
court’s decision because the sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a
defendant’s acceptance of responsibility.” United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239
(4th Cir. 2007) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). To earn a USSG
§ 3E1.1 reduction, “a defendant must prove to the court by a preponderance of the
evidence that [she] has clearly recognized and affirmatively accepted personal
responsibility for [her] criminal conduct.” United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905, 914
(4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Robinson the reduction
for acceptance of responsibility. Although Robinson argues that the district court
concluded that she was not eligible for the reduction as a matter of law, the record shows
that the district court denied Robinson the adjustment based on the factors identified in
3
the Guidelines commentary. See USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(A). The district court found
that Robinson’s testimony at the sentencing hearing was not credible and conflicted with
her admission in the plea agreement that she was responsible for the cocaine located in a
bedroom closet. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in making this
finding.
Robinson’s reliance on our decision in Hargrove is misplaced. In Hargrove, a
defendant pled guilty to three controlled substance charges and went to trial on a charge
that he violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). 478 F.3d at 197-98. The district court denied
Hargrove the reduction for acceptance of responsibility on the controlled substance
offenses, finding that it lacked the authority to grant the reduction because Hargrove went
to trial on the § 924(c) offense. Id. at 198. We determined that the § 924(c) trial did “not
render him ineligible for the reduction because [the § 924(c) count] is not subject to
grouping with the [controlled substance] offenses, is not factored into determining the
guidelines offense level, and cannot be the basis for an acceptance of responsibility
reduction.” Id. at 201. Here, by contrast, Robinson pled guilty to one offense and
contested relevant conduct that went to the heart of the Guidelines calculations.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Robinson a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
Robinson also contends that the district court erred in applying an enhancement
under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12) (“the premises enhancement”) because USSG § 2D1.8 does
not refer to the specific offense enhancements under USSG § 2D1.1(b). Because
Robinson failed to object to the application of the premises enhancement, we review this
4
issue for plain error. United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir.
2015). “To satisfy plain error review, the defendant must establish that: (1) there is a
sentencing error; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects [her] substantial rights.”
Id. We retain discretion to “cure the error, and should not do so unless the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). “In the ordinary case, . . . the failure to correct a plain
Guidelines error that affects a defendant’s substantial rights will seriously affect the
fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Rosales-Mireles v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1911 (2018).
We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in applying the premises
enhancement. Under USSG § 2D1.8(a)(1), Robinson’s base offense level was calculated
using “[t]he offense level from [USSG] § 2D1.1 applicable to the underlying controlled
substance offense.” “A cross reference (an instruction to apply another offense
guideline) refers to the entire offense guideline (i.e, the base offense level, specific
offense characteristics, cross references, and special instructions).” USSG § 1B1.5. And
under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12), a defendant receives a 2-level enhancement if she
“maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled
substance.” Robinson fails to cite any case that has adopted her interpretation of USSG
§ 2D1.8(a), and we “cannot correct an error pursuant to plain error review unless the
error is clear under current law.” United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir.
2018) (brackets omitted).
5
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Outcome: We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: