United States v. Robinson

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 12, 2022
DocketCriminal No. 2020-0211
StatusPublished

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

Bluebook
United States v. Robinson, (D.D.C. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-cr-211 (TSC) ) WILLLIAM ROBINSON, ) ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant William Robinson is currently serving a two-year sentence for fraudulent

conduct. He now moves for compassionate release, citing extraordinary health issues. The

government does not oppose Robinson’s motion, but it does express concerns about where he

will live and work upon release, and how he will obtain health insurance. For reasons explained

below, the court will GRANT Robinson’s Motion for Compassionate Release.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 1, 2020, Robinson pled guilty to one count of Interstate Transportation of

Stolen Property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, for fraudulent conduct that he committed

against his non-profit employer from March 2017 to approximately October 2019. ECF No. 5,

Plea Agreement. On March 2, 2021, then-District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sentenced

him to twenty-four months of incarceration, three years of supervised release, and ordered him to

pay restitution in the amount of $282,670 to his former employer. ECF No. 17, Judgment.

Robinson was permitted to self-surrender, and he began his term of imprisonment on May 4,

Page 1 of 9 2021. See ECF No. 20, Def. Mot., Exhibit A. He is eligible for home confinement on November

1, 2022, and his projected release date is January 12, 2023. Id.

Judge Jackson has since been elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,

and Robinson’s case was randomly reassigned to the undersigned Judge. On September 1, 2021,

Robinson, filed a pro se Motion for Compassionate Release. ECF No. 20, Def. Mot. He then

filed a Motion to Amend his Motion for Compassionate Release, in which he included additional

evidence supporting his original motion. ECF No. 23, Def. Amend. Mot.

In his first motion, Robinson claims extraordinary and compelling reasons for release

based on his deteriorating health since he began serving his sentence and asserts that he is at high

risk of serious health consequences if he contracts COVID-19. Def. Mot. at 4-6. Specifically,

Robinson has “Stage 4” kidney failure, type I diabetes that he asserts is not being adequately

treated and “which puts him at increased risk of getting COVID-19.” Id. He further claims that

at one point he was coughing up blood, which he says the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) failed to

investigate, that he has significantly worsening blood pressure levels, and that he suffers from a

host of other chronic medical conditions. See Def. Mot. at 6, Exhibit D.

In his amended motion, Robinson adds documents indicating concerns from Doctors

Andrew Choi and Sara Beyer of the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina (“FMC

Butner”) about recent imaging of his liver that revealed several large, newly formed lesions, his

need for follow-up testing, and the possibility of a cancer diagnosis. See Amend. Mot. at 1, Exs.

A, B. According to Robinson, he was unable to fit in FMC Butner’s MRI machine due to his

morbid obesity, and Dr. Beyer requested that he be taken to Duke Medical Center to have an

MRI in their larger machine. Id. at 1. The Complex Medical Warden, however, denied Dr.

Beyer’s request. Id.

Page 2 of 9 The government does not dispute Robinson’s purported medical conditions or his

inability to receive necessary treatment. In fact, the government points to additional medical

records warranting concern, including that Robinson appears to be experiencing severe diabetic

neuropathy, causing him a considerable amount of pain that is not currently managed. Gov.

Resp., Ex. B at 64. According to the government, while Robinson previously took gabapentin to

relieve his neuropathy symptoms, see id., Ex. A at 3-5, 8, his medical records from November 4,

2021 indicate that he is no longer receiving gabapentin and that his pain has worsened, id., Ex.

B; see also id. at 57-60 (listing active prescriptions from October 22-November 21, 2021, not

listing gabapentin). On December 17, 2021, he requested a wheelchair and described his current

state:

My nerve pain is getting so bad that sometimes I don’t feel safe walking back and forth to the destinations that I have to go to without falling. The pain is causing me not to go to medical for dressing changes, pill line, etc. because the pain is so painful that I have to stay in bed.

Id. at 61.

The government also acknowledges that the statutory factors set for in 18 U.S.C. § 3553

support Robinson’s release, and accordingly, does not oppose his motion; however, it requested

that “he provide a more detailed release plan to the Court.” ECF No. 27, Gov. Resp. at 6-8.

Robinson was employed as a Chief Technology Officer when he committed the underlying

offense, and the government queries whether he will be able to find employment working in

information technology, as is his stated plan. The government also questions whether he will

continue receiving adequate healthcare after release while his application for insurance is

pending.

In his reply, Robinson, through appointed counsel, provides additional details on his

release plan, including that he would live with his father Everette Lawrence in Lawndale, North

Page 3 of 9 Carolina, and work remotely as Chief Information Officer for his brother Jamie Robinson’s

business, Corvus Resilience Services, Inc., through which he would receive health care via the

company’s Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield health plan. See ECF No. 29, Def. Reply.

Robinson submitted letters from his father and brother outlining their roles supporting Robinson

with basic food and housing, supervising him at work, and enrolling him in a healthcare plan.

Id., Ex. 2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Robinson, as the moving party, “bears the burden of establishing that he is eligible for a

sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A).” United States v. Demirtas, Crim. A. No. 11-356

(RDM), 2020 WL 3489475, at *1 (D.D.C. June 25, 2020). A court may consider a defendant’s

motion for such a reduction only “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights

to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring [such] a motion on the defendant’s behalf or

the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility,

whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A court may reduce a defendant’s term of

imprisonment if, after considering the applicable factors listed at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), it finds

both that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction,” and that “the defendant

is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. §

3142(g)[.]” United States v. Long, 997 F.3d 342, 349 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (citing U.S.S.G. §

1B1.13(1)(A), (2)); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

III. ANALYSIS

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

Related

Pepper v. United States
179 L. Ed. 2d 196 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Robinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robinson-dcd-2022.