# Un itedS ta te s Co ur t ofA ppea ls F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

_________

___ 

## No. 20-3071 September Term, 2020 1:16-cr-00098-CKK-1 Filed On: December 28, 2020 United States of America,

Appell ee
v. Ivan Lamont Robinson,

Appell ant

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Consoli dated with 20-3074

ON APPEALFROM THE UNITED STAT ES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Henderson, Rogers, and Katsas, Circuit Judges J U D G M E N T This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties. The court has determined that t he issues presented occasion no nee d for an opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 36. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJ UDGED that the distr ict court’s September 17, 2020 order be affirmed insofar as t he court denied appell ant’s motion for reconsideration of his previous request for pre-sentencing release, and the district court ’s October 5, 2020 order denying appell ant’s motion for reconsideration be affirmed. First, appellant has not demonstrated that his t ransfer fr om a correctional facility located in the District of Columbia to one located in Virgin ia violated his rights under the Equal Protection Cl ause of the U.S. Constitution. Even assuming that his tr ansfer constitutes the type of disparate treatment t hat gives rise to an Equal Protection Clause

# Un itedS ta te s Co ur t ofA ppea ls F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

_________

___ 

## No. 20-3071 September Term, 2020 claim, absent a showing that the challenged action impinges on a fundamental right or was motivated by a suspect classification, courts “will not overturn [government] action unless the varying treatment of different groups of people is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the [government’s] actions were irrational.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979). Appell ant has not satisfied this standard. Next, the district court did not clearly err in relying on medical information promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control in concluding that appellant’s alleg ed diagnosi s of post-t raumatic stress disorder does not place him at a high risk of contracting COVID-19. See United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (district court’s factual determinations in connection with detention status are reviewed for clear error); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”). Furthermore, appellant has failed to show that a direct comparison between the present case and United States v. Epstein, Cr. No. 14-287 ( D.N.J. 2016), demonstrat es that he is entitled to release. See, e.g. , United States v. DiSomma, 951 F.2d 494, 497 (2d Cir. 1991) (courts consider motions for release based on exceptio nal reasons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) on an independ ent, case-by-case basis). The district court evaluated each of the factors identified by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Epstein, and reasonabl y concluded that appella nt had not shown that he was entitled to release. Finall y, appellant asserts that the distr ict court err ed in concludi ng that he was unlikel y to succeed on his motion for a new trial. Insofar as he seeks to challenge the substantive merits of t he district court’s order denying his new trial motion, that or der is not an appealabl e final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Insofar as he m erely seeks review of the district court’s denial of pre-sentencing release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2), he has not shown that the district court erred in concluding that he was unlikel y to succeed in obtaining a new trial based on hi s argument that the government withheld material ex culpatory evidence in vio lation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition wil l not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the m andate herein until seven days after resolution Page 2

# Un itedS ta te s Co ur t ofA ppea ls F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

_________

___ 

## No. 20-3071 September Term, 2020 of any timely petition for r ehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Amy Yacisin Deputy Clerk

Page 3