United States v. Antonio Robertson
883 F.3d 1080
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- In 2008–2011 federal investigation, Sorrells packaged and distributed PCP in coded containers: one-gram "dips," two-ounce "red tops," and eight-ounce (≈198 g) "green/yellow tops."
- Wiretaps and surveillance recorded multiple coded communications between Robertson and Sorrells arranging PCP transactions in summer 2011, including July 22, July 25–26, and an August 9 pickup of three eight-ounce containers.
- Police observed Robertson receive a package from Sorrells on August 9; Robertson fled when officers attempted to stop him; later his ID and unpackaged cigarettes were found in the abandoned car.
- A jury convicted Robertson of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of PCP (lesser-included offense) and conspiracy to commit money laundering. District court held Robertson accountable at sentencing for at least 1 kilogram of PCP, applied a two-level enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight, and sentenced him to 252 months on each count, concurrent.
- Robertson appealed quantity attribution, the §3C1.2 flight enhancement, and substantive reasonableness of sentence; also sought to file a pro se supplemental brief after counsel filed the opening brief.
- Court of Appeals affirmed convictions and the sentence on Count One, vacated and remanded Count Two to reduce the sentence to the 240-month statutory maximum, and vacated the clerk’s allowance of a pro se supplemental brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court clearly erred attributing ≥1 kg PCP to Robertson for guideline calculation | Robertson: some intercepted transactions plausibly were only 2-oz shipments; court should not attribute all co-conspirator quantities | Govt/District: conspiratorial scope, intercepted calls, and seized transactions support attribution of multiple 8-oz containers and foreseeable co-conspirator quantities | Affirmed: court did not clearly err; record supports attribution of ≥1 kg (reasonable inferences from intercepted calls and transactions) |
| Whether §3C1.2 reckless-endangerment enhancement applies when flight was from drug-related stop but laundering and drug conspiracies intertwined | Robertson: §2S1.1 commentary requires Chapter Three adjustments be based on laundering offense; his flight related only to drug offense, so §3C1.2 shouldn’t apply | Government: money-laundering and drug conspiracies were intertwined (fronting/credit scheme); flight evaded apprehension for both offenses | Affirmed: enhancement proper because flight was "based on" laundering offense as conspiracies were intertwined |
| Whether 252-month concurrent sentence on money-laundering count exceeds statutory maximum | Robertson: concurrent 252 months exceeds §1956(a)(1) 20-year statutory maximum | Government: (did not successfully defend the higher concurrent term) | Vacated/remanded: reduce Count Two to statutory maximum 240 months concurrent |
| Whether pro se supplemental brief should have been accepted after counsel’s brief | Robertson: sought leave to file pro se supplement raising additional arguments | Government: responded only to counsel’s brief; court policy disallows pro se filings when represented | Vacated clerk’s order allowing pro se brief; enforcement of rule against multiple filings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bradley, 643 F.3d 1121 (Eighth Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing drug-quantity findings)
- United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835 (Eighth Cir.) (district court may approximate drug quantity when not all drugs seized)
- United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403 (Eighth Cir.) (reasonable basis required for approximated drug-quantity findings)
- United States v. Zoran, 682 F.3d 1060 (Eighth Cir.) (remedy and limits when sentence exceeds statutory maximum)
- United States v. Hergott, 562 F.3d 968 (Eighth Cir.) (same; guidance on reducing sentences that exceed statutory caps)
- United States v. Conklin, 750 F.3d 773 (Eighth Cir.) (policy rejecting pro se filings when defendant is represented)
- United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767 (Eighth Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Payton, 918 F.2d 54 (Eighth Cir.) (same)