Filed: Jul. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Jul. 13, 2020
Summary: Case: 18-14523 Date Filed: 07/13/2020 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 18-14523 _ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00176-RWS-JSA-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRAVIS SENTALL ROBINSON, a.k.a. Triggaplay, a.k.a. Trigga, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (July 13, 2020) Before WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and CORRIGAN,* District Jud
Summary: Case: 18-14523 Date Filed: 07/13/2020 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 18-14523 _ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00176-RWS-JSA-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRAVIS SENTALL ROBINSON, a.k.a. Triggaplay, a.k.a. Trigga, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (July 13, 2020) Before WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and CORRIGAN,* District Judg..
More
Case: 18-14523 Date Filed: 07/13/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14523
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00176-RWS-JSA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TRAVIS SENTALL ROBINSON,
a.k.a. Triggaplay,
a.k.a. Trigga,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 13, 2020)
Before WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and CORRIGAN,* District
Judge.
*
Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida,
sitting by designation.
Case: 18-14523 Date Filed: 07/13/2020 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Travis Robinson appeals his convictions for multiple sex trafficking
violations, conspiracy, and obstructing enforcement. Robinson’s trial spanned
over three weeks, during which the jury heard testimony from five victims
regarding their experiences in Robinson’s sex trafficking operation. He was
sentenced to 27 years of imprisonment followed by 5 years of supervised release,
and he timely appealed, raising the following issues:
1. Did the trial judge err in denying Robinson’s Batson v. Kentucky 1
challenges because the peremptory strikes at issue violated the Equal
Protection Clause?
2. Did the trial judge err in denying Robinson’s motion for a mistrial
because the government, in its opening statement, told the jury that a co-
defendant, Ladrigus Stuckey, had pled guilty and was awaiting
sentencing?
3. Were Robinson’s Fifth Amendment due process rights and his Sixth
Amendment Confrontation Clause right violated when the trial judge
permitted victim “D. A.” to testify without first conducting a hearing to
determine her competency to testify?
1
476 U.S. 79 (1986).
2
Case: 18-14523 Date Filed: 07/13/2020 Page: 3 of 4
4. Did the trial judge err by admitting evidence of victims A.W.’s and
K.G.’s sexual assaults and the alleged sexual assaults of other women
while working for Robinson?
5. Did the trial judge err in excluding a videotape showing victim A.W.
using drugs and discussing being “turned out” prior to meeting
Robinson?
6. Did the trial judge err by giving the government’s modified jury
instructions and refusing to give Robinson’s requested jury instructions?
7. Did the trial judge err in denying defense counsel’s request that the
government produce the contact information for A.G., a victim, whom
the government did not call to testify at the trial?
8. Did the trial judge err in denying Robinson’s motion for a new trial due
to alleged Brady v. Maryland2 and Giglio v. United States 3 violations
because the government purportedly elicited false testimony from victim
L.W., and failed to correct that testimony?
The Court has considered all of Robinson’s specifications of error. After
review and consideration of the briefs and the record, and having had the benefit of
oral argument, we find no reversible error in the proceedings in the district court.
2
373 U.S. 83 (1963).
3
405 U.S. 150 (1972).
3
Case: 18-14523 Date Filed: 07/13/2020 Page: 4 of 4
AFFIRMED.
4