United States of America v. Vernice Robinson, a/k/a FATS Vernice Robinson

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 01-1513
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
VERNICE ROBINSON,
a/k/a FATS
Vernice Robinson,
Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
D.C. Crim. No. 00-cr-00361
District Judge: The Honorable Stewart Dalzel
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 10, 2003
Before: SCIRICA, BARRY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 22, 2003)
__________
OPINION
__________
BARRY, Circuit Judge
On June 21, 2001, a grand jury returned an indictment charging appellant Vernice

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Robinson with two counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and
two counts of brandishing a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On September 29, 2001, Robinson pled guilty to all four counts of
the indictment pursuant to a plea agreement in which he agreed, inter alia, to cooperate in
the prosecution of his co-felons in exchange for a motion for a downward departure from
the government pursuant to section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Robinson’s plea
agreement also clearly stated that Robinson understood, and had explained to him by
counsel, that the total possible maximum sentence he faced under the four counts in the
indictment would be life imprisonment, a minimum mandatory term of imprisonment of 32
years, 5 years supervised release, and a $1,000,000 fine.
On February 22, 2001, the District Court sentenced Robinson to 286 months
imprisonment and five years of supervised release and ordered Robinson to make
restitution in the amount of $23,503. This sentence represented a downward departure of
nearly eight years from the applicable minimum mandatory sentence, and an enormous
downward departure from the otherwise applicable guidelines range of 572 to 619 months,
reflecting the District Court’s acceptance of the government’s 5K1.1 motion and motion
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). Six days after he was sentenced, Robinson filed a notice of
appeal pro se. Counsel was appointed to represent him and has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 378 (1967), stating that there are no non-frivolous issues to
assert on appeal. He also moves to withdraw as counsel. Robinson received a copy of
counsel’s Anders brief and was given an opportunity to raise any additional arguments pro

-- 2 of 3 --

se. He did not do so.
Because Robinson entered an unconditional guilty plea on the record in open court,
his arguments on appeal are limited to challenging the jurisdiction of the District Court, the
validity of the plea, and the legality of the sentence imposed. See United States v. Broce,
488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989). The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3231. Our review of the record, just as the review of appellate counsel, indicates that
Robinson’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that the District Court complied with
the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting the
plea. Robinson’s 286 month sentence was proper, representing a substantial downward
departure from the applicable minimum mandatory sentence and from the otherwise
applicable guidelines range. We lack jurisdiction to review the extent of the departure.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed and counsel’s
motion to withdraw will be granted.
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/Maryanne Trump Barry
Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 3 --