United States v. Oscar Robinson
892 F.3d 209
6th Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Oscar Robinson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute fentanyl; PSR calculated offense level 19 and Criminal History Category VI, advisory range 63–78 months; statutory max 20 years.
- Officers executed a search warrant at Robinson’s Ohio apartment after controlled buys; they seized fentanyl, methamphetamine, marijuana, scales, packaging, phones, needles, $60; two women and a young child were present; Robinson fled and was tackled.
- District court varied upward 40 months from the top of the Guidelines, sentencing Robinson to 118 months (reduced from 120 to account for jail credit) based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
- District court emphasized Robinson’s 19-year criminal record, repeated community-control violations (eight placements, repeated violations), multiple convictions (robbery, drug trafficking, assault, weapons offenses), and ongoing drug distribution despite prior sanctions.
- Court also relied on community harm from the opioid epidemic in Ohio, risks to law enforcement and a child in the apartment, and Robinson’s role as a local distributor as bases supporting a substantial upward variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of an above-Guidelines sentence | Robinson: district court over-weighted his addiction/relapse and community harm; punished him for being an addict and ignored limited treatment opportunities | Government: sentence justified by chronic recidivism, extensive criminal history, danger of drug distribution, and local opioid harm | Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable; district court gave adequate § 3553(a) reasons and did not abuse discretion |
| Consideration of addiction and lack of treatment | Robinson: addiction and inadequate state treatment opportunities mitigate against long sentence | Government: prior treatment opportunities and repeated community-control failures support conclusion addiction did not outweigh need for deterrence and public protection | Affirmed — court acknowledged addiction, offered treatment in prison, but reasonably weighed recidivism and public-safety concerns more heavily |
| Use of community opioid-epidemic evidence at sentencing | Robinson: reliance on local opioid statistics was improper or too vague and ignored his addiction-driven conduct | Government: opioid epidemic and Robinson’s specific role in distributing fentanyl are valid § 3553(a) considerations | Affirmed — district court appropriately considered local opioid impact and the seriousness of defendant’s conduct in context |
| Reliance on pre-plea criminal-history disclosure | Robinson: pre-plea criminal-history-only report prejudiced him (career-offender suggestion) | Government: report merely informed sentencing; Robinson did not object and faced no career-offender designation | Affirmed — no showing of prejudice; sentencing proceeded on § 3553(a) analysis rather than career-offender treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jordan, 544 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing a variance from a Guidelines departure)
- United States v. Cunningham, 669 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012) (standards for abuse-of-discretion review of sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (review standards for variances and deference to district court’s § 3553(a) judgments)
- United States v. Robinson, 813 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2016) (no presumption of reasonableness for above-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2017) (appellate review limited to what was presented to district court)
- United States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir. 2009) (recognizing deference to district court sentencing determinations)
- United States v. Bridgewater, 479 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2007) (one or two § 3553(a) factors may predominate)
- United States v. Houston, 813 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2016) (appellate court cannot reweigh § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2010) (affirming upward variance to deter and protect public given recidivism)