United States v. Kenneth Everette Robinson, Jr.
704 F. App'x 857
11th Cir.2017Background
- Robinson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and signed a plea agreement that included a sentence-appeal waiver and acknowledged the ACCA 15-year minimum.
- The PSI listed four Florida drug convictions as ACCA predicates (three §893.13 drug convictions and one cannabis sale/intention to sell); Robinson objected only to counting the cannabis conviction but conceded its exclusion would not defeat ACCA status.
- At sentencing the court announced the guideline range, heard argument, imposed a 180‑month sentence at the low end of the guidelines, and asked if there was "anything further," to which both parties said no; Robinson later appealed.
- Robinson raised three principal claims on appeal: (1) the district court failed to elicit post‑sentence objections as required by Jones; (2) his ACCA enhancement violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; and (3) § 922(g) is unconstitutional facially and as applied under the Commerce Clause.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether remand under Jones was required, then addressed the ACCA and § 922(g) constitutional challenges, ultimately affirming the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Robinson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court failed to elicit objections after sentencing (Jones) | Court erred by not properly soliciting post‑sentence objections, requiring remand or preserved‑error review | Any Jones error is harmless because parties had opportunity to object earlier and the record allows meaningful appellate review | No remand; record sufficient for review, court applied preserved‑error standard where applicable |
| ACCA predicates do not qualify as "serious drug offenses" (mens rea issue) | Florida §893.13 offenses lack required scienter for ACCA "serious drug offense" and thus cannot qualify | Binding precedent forecloses this argument; Robinson waived challenge by his plea, admissions, and counsel's actions | Waived and foreclosed; ACCA enhancement upheld |
| Use of prior convictions to increase statutory maximum violates Fifth/Sixth Amendments | Elements determining ACCA enhancement (qualification and distinct occasions) were not charged/ decided by a jury, so enhancement raises constitutional error | Prior convictions are excepted from indictment/jury requirement; precedent allows use of priors to enhance under ACCA | Rejected; Smith and related precedent foreclose this argument |
| § 922(g) facially and as‑applied unconstitutional under Commerce Clause | § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power and government failed to show substantial interstate commerce nexus | Precedent holds § 922(g) constitutional where firearm has minimal nexus to interstate commerce; plea factual basis showed firearm manufactured out of state | Rejected; firearm traveled in interstate commerce per plea, statute constitutional and claim merits no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. United States, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir. 1990) (district court must elicit post‑sentence objections)
- Brokemond v. United States, 959 F.2d 206 (11th Cir. 1992) (pre‑sentence opportunity to object can satisfy Jones when considerations announced)
- Snyder v. United States, 941 F.2d 1427 (11th Cir. 1991) (post‑sentence "anything further" inquiry insufficient under Jones)
- United States v. Phillips, 834 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2016) (defendant may waive right to challenge ACCA status by admissions and plea conduct)
- United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (prior convictions need not be alleged in indictment or proven to a jury to be used for ACCA enhancement)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury, but prior‑conviction exception applies)
- United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir. 1996) (§ 922(g) constitutional if firearm has minimal nexus to interstate commerce)
- United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2001) (jurisdictional interstate‑commerce element immunizes § 922(g)(1) from facial attack)