IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : No. 4:07cr389

:

v. :

: (Judge Munley)

DOROTHY ROBINSON, :

Defendant :

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is Defendant Dorothy Robinson’s (hereinafter

“Robinson”) motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to Fair Sentencing Act

(hereinafter “FSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Doc. 1426). For the following

reasons, the court will deny Robinson’s motion. 

Background

On September 27, 2007, a grand jury in the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania returned a 26-count indictment against

a number of defendants related to a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and

cocaine base within 1,000 feet of protected zones, including public housing

and playgrounds. (Doc. 1). Count 21 charged Robinson with knowingly,

intentionally and unlawfully possessing with the intent to distribute crack

cocaine within 1,000 feet of public housing. (Id.) Count 21 also charged

Robinson with aiding and abetting in the possession and distribution of crack

cocaine within 1,000 feet of public housing. (Id.)

On September 1, 2009, a non-jury trial commenced against Robinson

Case 4:07-cr-00389-RDM Document 1445 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 6
before the Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie. Attorney Joseph O’Brien

represented Robinson. On the third day of trial, Robinson withdrew her plea of

not guilty and pled guilty to count 21 of the third superseding indictment. (Doc.

940). She entered into a binding plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), which provided for a term of incarceration of

216 months. (Doc. 1392, Ex. 1, Plea Agreement ¶ 11). The plea agreement

contained an appeal waiver. (Id. ¶ 24).

On September 4, 2009, the day after the change of plea colloquy,

Robinson sent a handwritten letter to the court, which the court construed as a

pro se motion to withdraw her guilty plea. (Doc. 947). In a type-written letter

supporting the motion, Robinson explained that she was “very distraught”

about her decision to plead guilty and that her decision was a result of

coercion from both her attorney and husband. (Doc. 949). She explained that

she “definitely would have not waived [her] rights to file a motion 2255 for

ineffectiveness of counsel knowing that [she] had problems with [her] attorney

all during . . . trial.” (Id.) 

On June 2, 2010, after holding an oral argument on the motion, the court

issued a memorandum and order denying Robinson’s motion to withdraw her

guilty plea. United States v. Robinson, 4:CR-07-389, 2010 WL 2265904 (M.D.

Pa. June 2, 2010). The court noted that the government presented substantial

2

Case 4:07-cr-00389-RDM Document 1445 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 6
evidence at the three-day trial, which established Robinson’s direct

involvement in the distribution of crack cocaine. Id. at *9. Specifically:

On September 1, 2009, at Defendant Robinson’s first day

of trial, Mr. Lewis “Guy” Tedesco (“Tedesco”) was called on

behalf of the government to testify. Tedesco, a confidential

informant, testified that on August 1, 2007, he met with

Pennsylvania State Trooper Dennis Haines in order to participate

in a controlled purchase at a residence located at 725 High

Street, Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Tedesco and Trooper

Haines met about two blocks from her residence, in the parking

lot of a hospital, where Trooper Haines searched Tedesco, then

gave him $200 to buy crack cocaine.

Tedesco proceeded to 725 High Street, where

co-defendant James Ross answered the front door. While the

front door was being opened, Tedesco saw Defendant Robinson

and co-defendant Earl Sampson exiting a bedroom located on

the first floor. Tedesco informed Defendant Robinson that he

was there to purchase [3.5 grams] of crack, and she invited him

to the kitchen located in the rear of the residence. In the kitchen,

Tedesco gave Defendant Robinson $200, and in return she

produced a plastic bag with crack cocaine. Upon receipt of the

crack cocaine, Tedesco exited the house and met with Trooper

Haines in the nearby hospital parking lot. Tedesco turned the

drugs over to Trooper Haines, who conducted one final search

of Tedesco. The August 1, 2007 transaction formed the

predicate for Count 21 of the Third Superseding Indictment, the

charge to which Ms. Robinson pled guilty.

Id. at *1 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, the court determined that

allowing Robinson to withdraw her plea would subject the government to

substantial prejudice. Id. at *11. The court noted that “the government has

expended significant resources to prepare for and try the three-day bench trial.

A number of witnesses are co-defendants who do not wish to testify a second

3

Case 4:07-cr-00389-RDM Document 1445 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 6
time against Defendant Robinson, and some have already been sentenced.” 

Id. Accordingly, the court determined that Robinson failed to carry her

substantial burden and denied Robinson’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea.

The court sentenced Robinson pursuant to the terms of her plea

agreement to a term of incarceration of 216 months followed by six years

supervised release. (Doc. 1208). She appealed the judgment and the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. U.S. v. Robinson, 427 F. App’x 163 (3d Cir.

2011). The Third Circuit determined that Robinson did not carry her

substantial burden of demonstrating a “fair and just reason” for withdrawing

her plea, and thus, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying her

motion. Id. at 164-68.

On May 30, 2012, Robinson filed a motion to vacate her sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1359), which the court denied on July 25,

2012 (Doc. 1395). Subsequent to the court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(hereinafter “section 2255”) motion, Robinson filed two motions for leave to file

an untimely appeal. (Docs. 1402, 1403). The court denied both motions on

August 20, 2013, and Robinson’s subsequent motion for reconsideration on

October 21, 2013. (Docs. 1412, 1418). On October 30, 2013, the court also

1

 The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the court’s reasoning 1

and dismissed Robinson’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction on

September 19, 2013. (Doc. 1416). 

4

Case 4:07-cr-00389-RDM Document 1445 Filed 01/20/15 Page 4 of 6
denied Robinson’s motion to file a second section 2255 motion. Robinson’s

instant motion seeks a reduction in her sentence under the FSA. (Doc. 1426).

Legal Standard

The FSA provides that when a defendant “has been sentenced to a term

of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been

lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” the court may, “upon motion of the

defendant . . . reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors

set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a

reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the

Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

Discussion

Robinson seeks a reduction based upon the FSA-inspired Guidelines

amendments, which lowered offense levels for cocaine base (crack cocaine)

offenses. To be entitled to a reduction of sentence, however, “a defendant’s

sentencing range must have been lowered by recalculation based on the

amended base offense level.” United States v. Mateo, 529 F.3d 152, 154 (3d

Cir. 2009) (addressing motion to reduce sentence based on amendment to

crack cocaine guidelines); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(b) (“A reduction in

the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy

statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . .

5

Case 4:07-cr-00389-RDM Document 1445 Filed 01/20/15 Page 5 of 6
[a]n amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect of lowering

the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”).

Here, the 2010 amendments did not alter the advisory Guidelines range

applicable to Robinson. At Robinson’s sentencing, Judge Vanaskie adopted

the factual findings of the pre-sentence investigation report, which determined

that Robinson possessed 19.5 kilograms of cocaine base. (Doc. 1240,

Sentencing Tr. dated June 24, 2010 at 4). Both before and after the

enactment of the FSA, the Guidelines set a base offense level of 38 for 19.5

kilograms of crack cocaine. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (Nov. 2009) (setting

offense level of 38 for “4.5 KG or more of Cocaine Base”); with U.S.S.G. § 2D

1.1 (Nov. 2011) (setting offense level of 38 for “8.4 KG or more of Cocaine

Base”). Robinson is therefore ineligible for a reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2).

Conclusion

 For the above-stated reasons, the court will deny Robinson’s motion to

reduce her sentence pursuant to FSA, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). An appropriate

order follows.

Date: 01/20/2015 James M. Munley 

JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY

United States District Court

6

Case 4:07-cr-00389-RDM Document 1445 Filed 01/20/15 Page 6 of 6