United States v. Rexdual Robinson
980 F.3d 454
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- Rexdual Deneil Robinson pleaded guilty pre‑2010 to possession with intent to distribute at least 5 grams of cocaine base within 1,000 feet of a school; he was sentenced as a career offender and ultimately received 180 months after a Rule 35 reduction.
- In 2019 Robinson moved under § 404 of the First Step Act to be resentenced "as if" the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect, arguing that intervening caselaw (e.g., Tanksley) means his 1990 Texas conviction no longer qualifies as a § 4B1.1 career‑offender predicate.
- Robinson asked for a reduction to about 108 months, relying on a non‑career‑offender Guidelines range and his post‑sentencing rehabilitation.
- The district court considered written submissions, acknowledged Robinson’s good conduct, but denied relief based on Robinson’s extensive criminal history, the § 860 school‑enhancement, and its assessment of the § 3553(a) factors.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not misinterpret the First Step Act or abuse its discretion in denying a reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court must apply a current (2019) non‑career‑offender Guidelines range when deciding a §404 First Step Act reduction | The First Step Act does not require courts to apply intervening changes in law unrelated to the Fair Sentencing Act; Hegwood controls and courts may limit changes to those mandated by the Fair Sentencing Act | Robinson: court should consider that, if sentenced today, he would not be a career offender and therefore be subject to a lower Guidelines range | Court: No mandatory requirement to apply intervening non‑FAIR changes; Hegwood forecloses that argument and the district court did not err |
| Whether the court must consider a movant’s post‑sentencing rehabilitation when deciding a §404 motion | Not required; courts may but are not obligated to consider post‑sentencing conduct | Robinson: his exemplary prison conduct and rehabilitation warrant a downward reduction | Court: Post‑sentencing conduct need not be considered but may be; here the court did consider it but denied relief based on other §3553(a) considerations |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a §404 reduction given §3553(a) factors | Denial was proper because of Robinson’s extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offense (including §860 school‑enhancement) | Robinson: reduction necessary to avoid unwarranted disparities and because current law would yield a lower range | Court: No abuse of discretion; district court reasonably relied on criminal history, §860, and §3553(a) factors to deny relief |
| Scope of legal changes a court may apply when imposing a §404 reduced sentence | Courts may apply changes that are consequences of the Fair Sentencing Act (e.g., Guidelines amendments mandated by that Act) but not unrelated intervening caselaw | Robinson sought application of intervening caselaw (Tanksley/Hinkle) that is not a Fair‑Sentencing‑mandated change | Court: Reaffirms Hegwood and Stewart distinction—only Fair‑Sentencing‑mandated amendments (and related Guideline changes) must be treated as "in effect," while unrelated intervening caselaw need not be applied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2019) (interpreting §404’s "as if" language to limit resentencing changes to those mandated by the Fair Sentencing Act)
- United States v. Stewart, 964 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2020) (permitting consideration of a Guidelines amendment that was a direct product of the Fair Sentencing Act)
- United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act motions need not receive a hearing; courts are not required to consider post‑sentencing conduct)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (describing the Fair Sentencing Act’s reduction of crack‑to‑powder sentencing disparity)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (post‑sentencing rehabilitation may be considered at resentencing)
- United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding a Texas drug offense no longer qualifies as a career‑offender predicate under Mathis)
- United States v. Carr, [citation="823 F. App'x 252"] (5th Cir. 2020) (affirming district court discretion to deny a First Step Act reduction even where original sentence remained within the Guidelines range)