UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON (2020)

Adorian Rashad Robinson pleaded guilty to one count of brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, namely Hobbs Act Robbery. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced him above the guideline range to a 180-month term of imprisonment and ordered that his sentence be served consecutive to his yet-to-be-imposed state sentences. Robinson does not challenge the length of his sentence but argues that, because he is only 19 years old, stacking his federal sentence upon unknown future state sentences rendered his federal sentence unreasonable.

The Supreme Court has held that a district court has discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) to order that a federal sentence run consecutively to an anticipated state sentence. See Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 236-37, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012). Although Robinson directs us to “the considerations discussed in the dissenting opinion in [Setser],” he does not identify or explain the considerations applicable here or why this case warrants a different result. Robinson has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by ordering that his sentence run consecutive to his anticipated state sentence, and he does not otherwise argue that it is substantively unreasonable. See id.; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.