United States v. Donnell Robinson, Jr.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedDecember 11, 2009
Docket09-2671
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Donnell Robinson, Jr. (United States v. Donnell Robinson, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Donnell Robinson, Jr., (7th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 10, 2009 Decided December 11, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐2671

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Central District of Illinois.

v. No. 1:08‐cr‐10096‐001

DONNELL ROBINSON, JR., Michael M. Mihm, Defendant‐Appellant. Judge.

O R D E R

Donnell Robinson, Jr., pleaded guilty to distributing more than five grams of crack, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment, the mandatory minimum given Robinson’s prior felony drug convictions. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Robinson’s plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Robinson appealed nonetheless, and his appointed counsel now seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Robinson did not respond to our invitation to comment on counsel’s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). We review only the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel considers whether Robinson could challenge the voluntariness of his guilty plea or the adequacy of the plea colloquy, but Robinson has given no indication that he No. 09‐2671 Page 2

wishes to have his guilty plea set aside, so counsel should have omitted this discussion. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). And because Robinson does not contest the validity of his plea, the appeal waiver must stand. See Nunez v. United States, 546 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Whitlow, 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that any potential arguments on appeal would be frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. John R. Whitlow
287 F.3d 638 (Seventh Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Larry D. Knox
287 F.3d 667 (Seventh Circuit, 2002)
Nunez v. United States
546 F.3d 450 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Donnell Robinson, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-donnell-robinson-jr-ca7-2009.