United States v. Billy Robinson, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13438
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robinson pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Wisconsin to two counts of traveling in interstate commerce to facilitate heroin distribution under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3).
- He participated briefly (spring 2014) in his cousin Carter’s heroin trafficking operation that bought heroin in Chicago and sold in Milwaukee; arrest followed sale to a confidential informant.
- District court imposed an 84-month within-Guidelines sentence after a hearing in which the judge made extensive remarks about urban decay, neighborhood "pathology," historical riots/protests, and personal recollections of the area.
- Robinson argued on appeal that the court procedurally erred by relying on irrelevant, inflammatory comments and by failing to give proper weight to his mitigation argument (that he was a minor participant and deserved a lesser sentence than co-defendant Du Vergey).
- The Seventh Circuit concluded the court’s extraneous remarks were interwoven with its sentencing rationale so the appellate court could not determine whether § 3553(a) factors controlled; it vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court committed procedural error by making extraneous, inflammatory comments at sentencing | Judge’s urban-decay and historical remarks were irrelevant and may have improperly influenced sentence | Sentence was within Guidelines and court adequately relied on § 3553(a) factors despite some stray comments | Vacated: comments were irrelevant, interwoven with sentencing, undermining ability to trace lawful reasons; remand for resentencing |
| Whether the court failed to consider Robinson’s minor-role/mitigation argument | Robinson urged lesser sentence than co-defendant Du Vergey due to reduced role | Court considered and rejected the argument based on Robinson’s criminal history and reliability to Carter; Du Vergey received leniency for addiction history | Affirmed: court sufficiently considered and explained rejection of mitigation argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Figueroa v. United States, 622 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2010) (extraneous, inflammatory sentencing comments can invalidate sentence when they might have influenced the outcome)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural requirement to explain sentence with reference to § 3553(a) factors)
- Kappes v. United States, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (procedural-error standard for sentencing explanation)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (court must consider nonfrivolous mitigation arguments but need not discuss each at length)