Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04983/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04983-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darren L. Robinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4983

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARREN L. ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00012)

Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 3, 2008

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason D. Parmer, PARMER LAW OFFICE, Hinton, West Virginia, for

Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4983 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/03/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

Darren L. Robinson appeals the 168-month career offender

sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to

distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

(2000). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court

erred by denying Robinson’s motion for a downward departure from

the advisory guideline range. Counsel states, however, that there

are no meritorious issues before the court. Robinson was informed

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not

done so. We affirm.

Counsel questions whether the district court erred by

denying the motion for downward departure. A district court’s

failure to grant a downward departure is not reviewable unless the

district court was under the mistaken impression that it lacked the

authority to depart. United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371

(4th Cir. 2008). Here, there is no evidence that the district

court misunderstood its authority to depart. Thus, we decline to

review this claim.

In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed

the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

Appeal: 07-4983 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/03/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client. 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: 07-4983 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/03/2008 Pg: 3 of 3