United States v. Robinson
654 F.3d 558
5th Cir.2011Background
- Robinson pleaded guilty to one count of using a cellular phone to threaten to damage or destroy a building by means of an explosive under 18 U.S.C. § 844(e).
- Robinson had a fourteen-year-old stepsister, M.R., purchase a prepaid phone with his money.
- He directed M.R. to leave the phone on his mother's back porch; he later used the phone to threaten the courthouse and Houston 911.
- Investigators traced the threats to a TracFone prepaid phone bought in Port Lavaca, with surveillance showing M.R. and another juvenile making the purchase.
- The PSR added a two-level § 3B1.4 enhancement for use of a minor and a four-level upgrade for substantial disruption, leading to a total offense level of 15 and a Guidelines range of 41–51 months in prison.
- Robinson objected to the § 3B1.4 enhancement; the district court overruled and sentenced him to 41 months plus three years of supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the § 3B1.4 enhancement supported by intent to use a minor? | Government argues intent inferred from timing and instructions. | Robinson claims no evidence of intent when he asked M.R. to purchase. | Enhancement supported by circumstantial evidence; no clear error. |
| Does Molina/Mata limit § 3B1.4 to drug/alien cases with a minor present? | Government asserts use of the minor to avoid detection fits § 3B1.4. | Robinson contends precedent requires affirmative action in drug/alien cases; not applicable here. | Applicable; presence not required, and Robinson directed the minor to act to avoid detection. |
| Must the minor’s status be essential to the enhancement? | Minor's role in procurement suffices to satisfy § 3B1.4. | Status of being a minor is not always necessary for the enhancement. | Minor's role suffices; not required that the act target the minor’s status. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mata, 624 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing § 3B1.4 determinations; deference to factual findings; circumstantial evidence permitted)
- United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2006) (circumstantial proof allowed to establish intent for enhancements)
- United States v. Alfaro, 919 F.2d 962 (5th Cir. 1990) (government must show factual predicate by preponderance for adjustments)
- United States v. Mourning, 914 F.2d 699 (5th Cir. 1990) (preponderance standard for sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Molina, 469 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2006) (presence of a minor alone not enough; requires use/assistance by minor)
- United States v. Mueller, 902 F.2d 336 (5th Cir. 1990) (illustrative authority on evidentiary standards for enhancements)