Court Opinion

ID: 9919437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 16:01:19.631368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:33.811027
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2836
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                           Charles Edward Robinson, III

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
                                 ____________

                             Submitted: January 3, 2024
                              Filed: January 18, 2024
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Charles Robinson III appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and the
district court1 imposed a sentence consistent with his binding Federal Rule of

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. His counsel has requested leave to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the district court erred calculating the base offense level and applying an
enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1), and that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly calculated the
Guidelines range. See United States v. Anderson, 618 F.3d 873, 879 (8th Cir. 2010)
(reviewing district court’s application of Guidelines de novo, and its factual findings
for clear error). As to Robinson’s sentence, because he agreed to the particular
sentence he received, he may not now challenge it on appeal. See, e.g., United States
v. Lovell, 811 F.3d 1061, 1063 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d
524, 526–27 (8th Cir. 2002) (“On appeal, [a defendant] cannot complain that the
district court gave him exactly what his lawyer asked.” (citation omitted)). Even
assuming he could challenge his sentence, it is not substantively unreasonable. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

                                          -2-