Filed: Dec. 01, 2020
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2020
Case: 20-60447 Document: 00515656929 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 1, 2020
No. 20-60447 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Anthony Robinson,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:19-CR-99-1
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Anthony Robinson appeals the below-guidelines 36-month sentence
he received following his convictions for cyberstalking, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He argues that the district court failed to provide an
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60447 Document: 00515656929 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2020
No. 20-60447
explanation of the sentence sufficient to indicate that it had considered his
mitigating argument related to COVID-19 and that such failure amounted to
reversible procedural error.
Because Robinson did not raise this claim of procedural error in the
district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Neal,
578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). 1 To demonstrate plain error, he must
show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial
rights. See Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such
a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it
seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.
Id. However, we determine that the standard of review is not
determinative here.
Robinson has not shown any error, plain or otherwise. The record
establishes that the district court thoroughly considered and in fact accepted
his mitigating arguments, including the mitigating arguments raised in his
sentencing memorandum, when concluding that a below-guidelines sentence
was appropriate, and it clearly stated the reasons for selecting the sentence
imposed. See United States v. Sanchez, 667 F.3d 555, 568 (5th Cir. 2012); see
also Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007). The district court did
not procedurally err by failing to explicitly or separately address his COVID-
19 argument. See United States v. Becerril-Pena,
714 F.3d 347, 351-52 (5th Cir.
2013);
Sanchez, 667 F.3d at 568. 2
1
Robinson argues that this issue was preserved, citing Holguin-Hernandez v. United
States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020). That case addressed substantive reasonableness and expressly
declined to address the procedural question raised here.
Id. at 766-67. Although Robinson
raised the issue of COVID-19 in his filings, he never argued that the district court failed to
explain its reasoning.
2
Under plain error review, Robinson would clearly fail the second, third, and
fourth prongs. He fails to cite any case or statute that requires consideration of a pandemic
2
Case: 20-60447 Document: 00515656929 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/01/2020
No. 20-60447
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
in determining the length of a sentence, so any error would not be plain. He fails to show
that the sentence would have been different if the district court had explicitly discussed it,
so he fails the third prong. We would not exercise our discretion to remand this case, given
that he received a below-guidelines sentence and nothing suggests that a district court is
required to reduce a sentence based solely on the existence of a pandemic in the jails and
prisons.
3
