US v. Robin George, No. 16-4248 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBIN LYNN GEORGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00189-WO-2) Submitted: November 3, 2016 Decided: November 10, 2016 Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robin Lynn George pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor by a parent for the production of child pornography, in violation court of 18 imposed appeals, U.S.C. a § 2251(b), claiming unreasonable. that George the The district 252-month sentence. George sentence below-Guidelines (e) is contends that (2012). the substantively district court’s sentence exceeds the length necessary to satisfy the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We review a sentence for deferential abuse-of-discretion States, U.S. 552 procedural substantive and 38, 51 substantive reasonableness, circumstances.” reasonableness standard.” (2007). Gall v. Reasonableness components. we under consider Id. “the United has To “a both evaluate totality of the Id. The court presumes reasonable the length of a downwardvariance sentence. (4th Cir. 2012). United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 We may consider the extent that a sentence varies from the applicable Guidelines range, “but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, United 2011). on States a whole, v. justify the Diosdado-Star, 630 extent of F.3d 359, the 366 variance.” (4th Cir. Section 3553(a) provides that the court should consider the following factors when imposing a sentence: 2 (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed-(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford conduct; adequate deterrence to criminal (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner[.] After reviewing the record, we find that George failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded her downwardvariance sentence. The district court contemplated mitigating factors that George cites on appeal: all the the unusualness of her behavior while dating the man who coerced her offenses, her susceptibility to that coercion, and her vulnerability after the death of her husband. and circumstances of the The court also assessed the nature offense without overvaluing it. Finally, the court addressed each of the four factors listed in § 3553(a)(2), sufficiently accounting for all the purposes of sentencing. Thus, the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
