United States v. Robinson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7431
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Robinson was convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine (Count I); he was acquitted on a separate distribution charge (Count II).
- Trial included testimony from Winfrey about supplying powder cocaine, converting it to crack, and Robinson’s involvement in purchases and distributions; Hall, Curry, Ousley, and Long also testified to Robinson’s participation.
- Jury found Robinson conspired to distribute in excess of five grams of crack cocaine; the district court calculated an advisory range with a career-offender enhancement and a statutory minimum, sentencing him to 360 months’ imprisonment.
- The district court treated a 1999 Iowa felony conviction (conspiracy to commit terrorism) as a career-offender predicate and treated a 2007 Iowa drug tax stamp conviction as a potential controlled-substance offense, but the court ultimately imposed the sentence, subject to review.
- Robinson challenged two evidentiary rulings on appeal and urged vacatur of his sentence on several sentencing-related theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harmless error from hearsay testimony | Robinson | Robinson | Harmless; testimony cumulative and supported by other evidence |
| Admissibility of prior unlawful conduct under Rule 404(b) | Robinson | Robinson | No abuse of discretion; probative to show knowledge/absence of mistake with limiting instruction |
| Whether Iowa drug tax stamp law qualifies as a controlled substance offense | Robinson | Robinson | The statute is overinclusive; modified categorical approach applied to determine basis for conviction |
| Career-offender determination based on drug tax stamp conviction | Robinson | Robinson | Documentation insufficient to establish a qualifying controlled-substance offense; remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gustafson, 528 F.3d 587 (8th Cir. 2008) (harmless-error review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Londondio, 420 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2005) (harmlessness of cumulative hearsay evidence)
- United States v. Melecio-Rodriguez, 231 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2000) (harmless-error standard for cumulative hearsay)
- United States v. White, 11 F.3d 1446 (8th Cir. 1993) (corroboration of testimony to assess harms of hearsay)
- United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2002) ( Rule 404(b) factors for admissibility)
- Salinas v. United States, 547 U.S. 188 (2006) (categorical approach to controlled-substance offenses; overinclusive statutes)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (categorical vs modified-categorical approach for career-offender analysis)
- Pearson v. United States, 553 F.3d 1183 (8th Cir. 2009) (modified-categorical approach guidance)
- Ross v. United States, 613 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2010) (which portion of a statute was basis for conviction under modified approach)
- Franzen v. State, 495 N.W.2d 717 (Iowa 1993) (possession as lesser included offense of drug tax stamp violations)
- Gallup v. State, 500 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 1993) (double jeopardy and drug tax stamp context; separate punishments)
- Coleman v. United States, 556 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2009) (career-offender analysis and medication of offenses)
- United States v. Greer, 607 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (standing to challenge minimum sentence; sentencing framework)