United States of America v. Jacob Robinson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2833
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jacob Robinson
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: April 9, 2026
Filed: April 14, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jacob Robinson appeals after he pled guilty to a firearm offense and the district
court1 sentenced him as an armed career criminal. His counsel has moved for leave
1The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the court erroneously determined that Robinson’s prior felony conviction
under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-420 qualified as a predicate offense for purposes of the
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Robinson has filed a pro se brief arguing the
district court erred in calculating his criminal history and sentencing him as an armed
career criminal.
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court correctly determined
that Robinson’s prior conviction under section 5-64-420 qualified as an ACCA
predicate offense. See United States v. Ferguson, 163 F.4th 541, 544 (8th Cir. 2026)
(standard of review); United States v. Buckley, 146 F.4th 679, 681-82 (8th Cir. 2025)
(holding cocaine conviction under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-420 is serious drug offense
under the ACCA). As to Robinson’s pro se challenges, we further conclude the
district court correctly sentenced him as an armed career criminal, as there is no time
limit for predicate ACCA offenses, United States v. Rodriguez, 612 F.3d 1049, 1056-
57 (8th Cir. 2010) (rejecting argument based on age of ACCA predicate offenses),
and the district court did not plainly err in calculating Robinson’s advisory Guidelines
imprisonment range, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 2014)
(standard of review). We decline to address Robinson’s ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d
824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated
in collateral proceedings where record can be properly developed).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --