Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05207/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05207-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tavon Robinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Filed: June 17, 2008

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5207

(1:06-cr-00074-WDQ)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TAVON ROBINSON, 

Defendant - Appellant.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed June 12, 2008, as follows:

On page 2, line 7 -- the word “that” is corrected to read

“than.”

For the Court - By Direction

 /s/ Patricia S. Connor 

 Clerk

Appeal: 06-5207 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/17/2008 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TAVON ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:06-cr-00074-WDQ)

Submitted: June 4, 2008 Decided: June 12, 2008

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Q. Butler, BUTLER LEGAL GROUP, PLLP, Washington, D.C., for

Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kwame J.

Manley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-5207 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/17/2008 Pg: 2 of 5
*

Robinson also challenges whether the district court erred in

failing to differentiate between cocaine and crack in determining

the base offense level. However, there is no merit to this

argument as the district court did not calculate Robinson’s

advisory guideline range based on crack.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tavon Robinson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea

agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute a mixture of cocaine, cocaine base, and

heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court

then sentenced Robinson to 324 months’ imprisonment. Robinson

appealed, contending that the district court’s findings that at

least fifteen but not more than fifty kilograms of cocaine was

reasonably foreseeable to him, and that he was a leader in the

conspiracy, were clearly erroneous. Robinson also asserts that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel.

We review the district court’s calculation of the

quantity of drugs attributable to Robinson for sentencing purposes

for clear error.* See United States v. Tucker, 473 F.3d 556, 560

(4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review); United States v.

Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999). In calculating drug

amounts, the court may consider any relevant information, provided

that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to

support its accuracy. United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1021

(4th Cir. 1992). Because Robinson admitted to the drug quantities

attributed to him under oath, we conclude that the district court

Appeal: 06-5207 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/17/2008 Pg: 3 of 5
- 3 -

properly adopted the probation officer’s recommended calculation of

drug quantity. 

Next, the district court’s determination of the

defendant’s role in the offense is also reviewed for clear error.

United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002). A

four-level adjustment for role in the offense is appropriate when

“the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity

that involved five or more participants or was otherwise

extensive.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1(a).

Robinson admitted under oath that he was an organizer and leader in

this criminal activity that involved more than five participants.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not clearly

err in determining that the enhancement based on Robinson’s

leadership role was warranted.

Finally, Robinson argues that counsel provided

ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the

amount and kind of narcotics used to calculate his advisory

guideline range. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are

generally not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v.

King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for

adequate development of the record, a defendant must bring his

claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. See id.; United

States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An exception

exists when the record conclusively establishes ineffective

Appeal: 06-5207 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/17/2008 Pg: 4 of 5
- 4 -

assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th

Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at 295. Our review of the record does

not conclusively show that counsel was ineffective. We therefore

decline to consider Robinson’s allegations of ineffective

assistance of counsel, as he may raise them in a § 2255 motion. 

Accordingly, we affirm Robinson’s conviction and

sentence. 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

Appeal: 06-5207 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/17/2008 Pg: 5 of 5