United States of America v. David Robinson

ALD-172 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-4858
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID ROBINSON,
Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 04-cr-00655-1)
District Judge: Honorable Berle M. Schiller
____________________________________
Submitted on a Motion for Summary Affirmance
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 30, 2009
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 2, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant David Robinson, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, was convicted of bank robbery in violation of

-- 1 of 3 --

This “supplemental” motion makes reference to an original motion submitted on1
September 22, 2008, but no such motion appears on the docket.
2
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and possession of heroin by a federal prisoner in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2). He was sentenced in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to a total term of imprisonment of 151 months, to be followed by
a term of supervised release of 5 years. He was ordered to pay a special assessment of
$400.00 and to make restitution in the amount of $5,886.00. We affirmed the judgment
of sentence on direct appeal in United States v. Robinson, 293 Fed. Appx. 958 (3d Cir.
2008), on September 26, 2008. Robinson did not challenge the order of restitution on
direct appeal.
On October 3, 2008, Robinson filed an item in the sentencing court titled
“Supplemental Filing to Motion To Waive Restitution,” which the District Court treated
as a motion to waive restitution. In this one-paragraph motion, Robinson stated that:1
I present new evidence to the Court, citing a case which has been affirmed
in regards to fine & restitution costs involving inmates in the Bureau of
Prisons. This case is Soroka v. Daniels, 467 F. Supp.2d 1097-98 (District
of Oregon 2006.) Where the Court ruled that the Bureau of Prisons cannot
dictate that prisoners participate in the Inmate Federal Responsibility
Payment Program (IFRP). Nor should these prisoners be penalized with
harse [sic] restrictions if they chose not to participate in this payment
program.
(Motion, at 1.) Robinson went on to ask that he not be required to make his restitution
payments until he is released to serve his term of supervised release.
The Government submitted a response to the motion, noting that Robinson had not

-- 2 of 3 --

We note further that Robinson did not make an improper delegation argument. See2
United States v. Coates, 178 F.3d 681, 684-85 (3d Cir. 1999) (ordering schedule of
restitution payments is judicial function that cannot be delegated in whole or in part).
3
complained of a procedural error in the imposition of restitution, and, in any event, an
inmate may not challenge the imposition of restitution in a motion to vacate sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Government was of the view that federal habeas corpus2
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, also would not lie because Robinson’s claim “that he no
longer wishes to pay [restitution]” is not a challenge to the execution of his sentence.
(Response, at 2.) In an order entered on December 2, 2008, the District Court denied the
motion to waive restitution without explanation, except that the court referred to the
Government’s response.
Robinson appeals. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance
pursuant to Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, to which Robinson has not responded.
We will grant the Government’s motion and summarily affirm under Third Circuit
LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because it clearly appears that no substantial question is
presented by this appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although, as the
Government noted, the exact nature of Robinson’s challenge is unclear, we are satisfied
that he has not stated a basis for jurisdiction in the sentencing court.
For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the Government’s motion and summarily
affirm the order of the District Court denying appellant’s motion to waive restitution.

-- 3 of 3 --