UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4716
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTOINE L. ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00392-RLW-1)
Submitted: September 22, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles D. Lewis, Richmond, Virginia for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Michael A. Jagels, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Robinson appeals his conviction and 120 month
sentence for one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), one count of distribution of heroin and
aiding and abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006) and
18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006), and one count of possession with intent to
distribute heroin and aiding and abetting also in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
certified that he has identified no meritorious issues for
appeal. The Government has responded, and Robinson has filed a
pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
I. Batson Challenge
Robinson’s counsel first questions whether the
district court erred in denying his (and his co-defendant,
Sharone White’s *) second challenge made pursuant to Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). After the district court
reinstated a juror pursuant to a Batson challenge, Robinson and
*
White and Robinson both appealed their convictions and
sentences, and their appeals were initially consolidated.
Because counsel for White has raised claims on appeal in both an
Anders and traditional format, the appeals have been
deconsolidated.
2
White sought to challenge an earlier strike that, at the time,
had gone unchallenged. The Government argued the strike was
proper because the potential juror was a social worker and might
be more sympathetic to a criminal defendant.
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the use of
peremptory challenges based solely on race or gender. Batson,
476 U.S. at 86; J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127
(1994). Great deference is given to a district court’s
determination of whether a peremptory challenge was based on a
discriminatory motive, and the court’s ruling is reviewed for
clear error. Jones v. Plaster, 57 F.3d 417, 421 (4th Cir.
1995). If, in response to a Batson challenge, the Government
offers a race-neutral explanation for the strike, and the
defendant does not argue the explanation was pretextual, we have
held that the challenge is waived. See Davis v. Baltimore Gas &
Elec. Co., 160 F.3d 1023, 1027 (4th Cir. 1998). Here, no such
argument was raised, and we find the Batson claim was not
preserved. In any event, after review of the record, we
conclude that the district court did not clearly err in failing
to reinstate the stricken member of the venire.
II. Motion to Strike Expert Testimony
Robinson’s counsel next questions whether the district
court erred in denying White’s motion to strike Alcohol,
3
Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) Agent Daniel Board’s testimony,
which referred to prior testimony, regarding the amount of
currency found on White’s person when he was arrested. Agent
Board referred to the $2700 in currency White possessed as
indicative of proceeds from a drug distribution operation.
A district court’s evidentiary rulings are entitled to
substantial deference and will only be reversed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 309
(4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 950 (2009). We will
find that discretion to have been abused only when the district
court acted arbitrarily or irrationally. Id.
The record reveals that the arresting officer had
previously testified that White possessed a significant amount
of currency when he was arrested. Although the officer did not
specifically state that White possessed $2700, the officer did
testify that White had “over $2000” when he was arrested. We
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying White’s motion to strike.
III. Pro Se Supplemental Brief
Robinson has filed a pro se supplemental brief in this
court. He claims that the indictment against him was defective,
that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his convictions,
that the district court erred by failing to strike Agent Board’s
4
testimony, that the district court erred by applying a firearms
enhancement to his sentence, and that the district court erred
by sentencing him as a career offender. We have reviewed these
claims and conclude they are without merit.
Finally, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed
the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Robinson requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Robinson.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5