2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-9-2011

Gilbert Robinson v. T. Sniezek

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1272

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Gilbert Robinson v. T. Sniezek" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1120.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1120
DLD-169 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1272

___________

GILBERT ROBINSON,

Appellant

v.

Warden T. R. SNIEZEK

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-10-cv-00680)

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 21, 2011

Before: BARRY, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 9, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Gilbert Robinson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the District 

Court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the 

reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.
2

In 2003, state police troopers pulled over the car in which Robinson was a 

passenger. The driver consented to a search of the vehicle, and the officers uncovered 

drugs, weapons, and other incriminating evidence. A further investigation led to the 

discovery of additional drugs and paraphernalia in two hotel rooms Robinson was 

occupying. Robinson was thereafter indicted for distribution of a controlled substance 

and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) 

and 846.

Robinson moved to suppress the evidence found as a result of the vehicle search, 

but the trial court denied the motion for lack of standing. He ultimately pleaded guilty 

and received a sentence of 292 months’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed his sentence. 

United States v. Robinson, 186 F. App’x 240 (3d Cir. 2006). In 2007, Robinson filed an 

unsuccessful motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in which he 

challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea, the denial of his motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea, and the effectiveness of his counsel. We denied his request for a certificate of 

appealability. United States v. Robinson, C.A. No. 09-2452 (order entered Feb. 2, 2010).

In March 2010, Robinson filed in the District Court a petition under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241, claiming that the state police troopers violated his equal protection rights because 

the vehicle search was allegedly based on his race. The District Court dismissed the 

petition and we summarily affirmed. See Robinson v. Sniezek, 401 F. App’x 645 (3d 

Cir. 2010). Robinson then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 

The District Court denied the motion, and Robinson timely appealed.
3

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we may summarily affirm 

if Robinson does not raise a substantial question on appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d 

Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. In his Rule 60(b) motion, Robinson argued that the Government took 

inconsistent positions concerning his standing to challenge the vehicle search. In 

Robinson’s view, the Government ultimately admitted that he had standing to challenge 

the search, and its failure to admit that fact earlier rendered his post-conviction 

proceedings unfair. The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that Robinson’s 

argument lacked merit1and that, even if the Government had taken inconsistent positions, 

the Government’s arguments concerning his standing to challenge the search did not bear 

on the disposition of Robinson’s § 2255 motion or his § 2241 petition. We agree.

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

 

1

 The District Court correctly noted that the Government did not take inconsistent 

positions with regard to Robinson’s standing to challenge the search. Rather, the 

Government consistently argued that Robinson lacked standing to challenge the vehicle 

search because the driver consented to the search, but noted that Robinson did have 

standing to challenge the validity of the traffic stop. See D. Ct. Doc. No. 7, 6-8.