United States of America v. Charles Edward Robinson, III

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2836
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Charles Edward Robinson, III
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: January 3, 2024
Filed: January 18, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Charles Robinson III appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and the
district court1 imposed a sentence consistent with his binding Federal Rule of
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. His counsel has requested leave to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the district court erred calculating the base offense level and applying an
enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1), and that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly calculated the
Guidelines range. See United States v. Anderson, 618 F.3d 873, 879 (8th Cir. 2010)
(reviewing district court’s application of Guidelines de novo, and its factual findings
for clear error). As to Robinson’s sentence, because he agreed to the particular
sentence he received, he may not now challenge it on appeal. See, e.g., United States
v. Lovell, 811 F.3d 1061, 1063 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d
524, 526–27 (8th Cir. 2002) (“On appeal, [a defendant] cannot complain that the
district court gave him exactly what his lawyer asked.” (citation omitted)). Even
assuming he could challenge his sentence, it is not substantively unreasonable. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --