United States of America v. David Robinson

CLD-222 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-4058
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID ROBINSON, Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 2-04-cr-00655-001)
District Judge: Honorable Berle M. Schiller
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 18, 2009
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 13, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
David Robinson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the District
Court’s order denying his “Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,” and
its subsequent order denying reconsideration thereof. The government has moved for
summary affirmance. Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will

-- 1 of 3 --

The District Court initially entered judgment against Robinson in February 2005, but1
amended the judgment in November 2006.
2
grant the motion. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
In October 2004, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania returned an indictment against Robinson charging him with three
counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and one count of possession
of heroin by a federal prisoner in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2). Robinson pled
guilty to all counts, and, on November 14, 2006, was sentenced to an aggregate term of
151 months’ imprisonment followed by 5 years of supervised relief. On September 26,1
2008, we affirmed the judgment of sentence. United States v. Robinson, 293 Fed. Appx.
958 (3d Cir. 2008).
Meanwhile, on July 29, 2008, Robinson filed in the District Court a motion titled
“Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction–28 U.S.C. § 1359; F.R.C.P.
Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3).” (Dist. Ct. Dkt. # 49.) In the motion, Robinson claimed
that the District Court never had jurisdiction over his criminal case because “it lacked
exclusive jurisdiction over the exact geographical location where the alleged criminal
activity mentioned in the indictment was alleged to have taken place.” (Dist. Ct. Dkt.
# 49, p. 2.) The government opposed the motion on the ground that Robinson’s argument
was meritless. By order entered August 25, 2008, the District Court denied the motion.
Robinson sought reconsideration, but the District Court denied his request. This appeal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
followed.
Upon review, we conclude that the District Court properly denied relief. It is well
established that the district courts have original jurisdiction over “offenses against the
laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The indictment here charged Robinson
with violations of two federal criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 1791(a)(2). There can be no question, then, that the District Court had jurisdiction over
Robinson’s case. Therefore, the court properly denied Robinson’s motion, and his
subsequent request for reconsideration.
For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the government’s motion and summarily
affirm the District Court’s orders. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

-- 3 of 3 --