United States of America v. Yusuf Niam Hassine Robinson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YUSUF NIAM HASSINE ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00144-CCE-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ashley E. Waid, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Yusuf Niam Hassine Robinson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The
district court sentenced Robinson to 78 months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised
release. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but asking this court to
review the reasonableness of the selected sentence. Although informed of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, Robinson has not done so. The Government declined to file a
brief. We affirm.
We review a sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for both
procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In determining procedural
reasonableness, we consider, among other things, whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range. Id. If a sentence is free of
“significant procedural error,” then we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]
into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. A sentence is presumptively
substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,”
and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
Our review of the record confirms the procedural reasonableness of Robinson’s
sentence. At sentencing, the district court correctly calculated Robinson’s advisory

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Guidelines range, to which Robinson did not object. The district court also heard witness
testimony and afforded the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence and
Robinson an opportunity to allocute. The district court then weighed the § 3553(a) factors
it deemed most relevant and provided a reasoned explanation for the chosen sentence. And
because our review of the record did not yield anything that undermines the presumption
of substantive reasonableness afforded the selected within-Guidelines sentence, we also
conclude that Robinson’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Robinson requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state
that a copy thereof was served on Robinson. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --