United States v. Robinson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15082

Robinson and accomplice Marcus Hutchinson targeted a Cadillac in Hempstead; Hutchinson planned a robbery and later pointed a gun at the female passenger.
Robinson initially was unaware of a planned gun, but upon rounding the corner he saw Hutchinson brandishing the firearm, told him to "put the gun away," did not flee, and then drove off in the vehicle with Hutchinson.
Robinson pled guilty to (1) aiding and abetting carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119 via § 2) and (2) aiding and abetting brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c) via § 2).
At plea colloquy Robinson admitted he knew a robbery was intended, learned a gun was being used while the crime was ongoing, and nonetheless continued to participate.
He was sentenced to 28 months (carjacking) + 84 months (924(c) count). He sought a downward departure based on harsh pretrial conditions at Nassau County Correctional Center (NCCC); the district court denied the request.
After Rosemond v. United States was decided, Robinson challenged the factual basis for his § 924(c) plea under Rosemond and also argued procedural unreasonableness for declining a downward departure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of factual basis for aiding and abetting § 924(c) after Rosemond	Robinson: he lacked the requisite intent because he only learned of the gun when he rounded the corner and could not have formed prior knowledge to incur § 924(c) liability	Government: Robinson admitted he saw the gun, had opportunity to walk away, but remained and aided the carjacking, satisfying Rosemond's intent and act requirements	Affirmed — plea was supported: seeing the gun and continuing to participate supplied the required intent and affirmative act under Rosemond
Procedural reasonableness / downward departure for NCCC conditions	Robinson: harsh, unsanitary, unsafe pretrial confinement at NCCC warranted a downward departure	Government/District Court: evidence was insufficient; court did not misunderstand its authority and adequately explained its decision	Affirmed — district court did not err or abuse discretion in denying departure or in its explanation

Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (explains the mens rea and affirmative-act requirements to aid and abet a § 924(c) offense)
United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513 (2d Cir. 1997) (district court may accept defendant's admissions as factual basis for plea)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (standards for appellate review of Rule 11 plea colloquy errors)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural reasonableness standards for sentencing review)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption that sentencing judge considered arguments and need not write extended reasoning)
United States v. Carty, 264 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (pre-sentence confinement conditions can, in appropriate cases, support downward departures)