## Facts

- In 2003, Anthony Robinson was incarcerated for assaulting his wife, Rebecca.
- In 2004, after Robinson’s release, a protection order issued that prohibited Robinson from contacting Rebecca.
- Shortly after Robinson’s release, Robinson, Rebecca, and their two children moved from Washington to Maine.
- The United States charged Robinson with interstate violation of a protection order.
- Robinson pleaded guilty.
- The U.S. Probation Office applied the federal Sentencing Guidelines and recommended a sentencing range of 37 to 46 months.
- The district judge independently applied the Guidelines and concluded (1) Robinson should not receive a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he attempted to justify violating the order and continued violating it after arrest by sending Rebecca letters, and (2) Robinson’s offense level should increase by two levels because he engaged in a pattern of harassing, threatening, and assaultive conduct toward Rebecca.
- With those determinations, the judge calculated a Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months, but imposed a 60-month prison sentence because 60 months was the statutory maximum for interstate violation of a protection order.
- Robinson appealed, arguing the district court erred by applying the two-level pattern-of-abuse increase and by denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err in increasing Robinson’s offense level by two levels based on a pattern of harassing, threatening, and assaultive conduct toward the protected person?
2. Did the district court err in denying Robinson a reduction for acceptance of responsibility despite his guilty plea?

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed.
- The court held the district court did not commit reversible error in applying the two-level increase for a pattern of abusive conduct.
- The court held the district court did not commit reversible error in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction where Robinson attempted to justify his conduct and continued contacting the victim after arrest.
- The 60-month sentence (limited by the statutory maximum) was left intact.

## Legal Principles

- Sentencing factfinding supporting Guideline adjustments is reviewed deferentially; an appellate court will not overturn plausible findings supported by the record.
- A two-level increase based on a “pattern” of harassing, threatening, or assaultive behavior may be applied when the defendant’s conduct reflects more than an isolated incident and shows repeated abusive actions toward the protected person.
- A guilty plea is significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility, but it does not entitle a defendant to the reduction as a matter of right.
- Continued prohibited contact after arrest and efforts to excuse or minimize the offense can support denial of acceptance-of-responsibility credit under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
- When the correctly calculated Guidelines range exceeds the statutory maximum, the sentence cannot exceed that maximum; imposing the statutory maximum is permissible when supported by the court’s Guideline findings.

## Conclusion

United States v. Robinson affirmed a 60-month sentence for interstate violation of a protection order, holding that the district court could apply a two-level increase for a pattern of harassing, threatening, and assaultive conduct and could deny acceptance-of-responsibility credit where the defendant tried to justify the violation and continued contacting the victim after arrest, even though he pleaded guilty.


United States v. Robinson, 433 F.3d 31 (2005)