Defendants and their families regularly ask us at Robinson & Brandt, PSC, about our track record in obtaining successful results for our clients. For many years we have reported some of the best examples of our victories in our firm’s periodic newsletter, The Bulletin. We know that many of you have not read every issue of our newsletter, so we have taken the time to put together a list of cases where we were able to achieve successful results for our clients.
Please note that this list is not a full list of all victories of our firm. Many victories come from rulings that are never reduced to writing. Others occur in cases that are sealed or must remain confidential. We have listed a select few to illustrate the wide range of results that are possible when you hire attorneys who actually care and listen to you and your supporters.
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Tim Wilson, 543 U.S. 1103, 125 S.Ct. 1028 (2005); victory in which Supreme Court remanded case on the finding that Sixth Amendment right had been violated, ultimately resulting in a re-sentencing and a sentence four years less than original sentence.
United States v. Mardell Trotter, No. 07-5894, 128 S.Ct. 870 (2008); victory in which Supreme Court remanded case with finding that district court had erred in failing to take into account the unwarranted disparity in punishment between those convicted of a crack cocaine offense and those convicted of a powder cocaine offense.
United States v. Maurice Trotter, No. 07-5341, 128 S.Ct. 864 (2008); victory in which Supreme Court remanded case with finding that district court had erred in failing to take into account the unwarranted disparity in punishment between those convicted of a crack cocaine offense and those convicted of a powder cocaine offense.
United States v. Jaime Moreno, 543 U.S. 1099, 125 S.Ct. 1050 (2005); we represented client with appeal to the Sixth Circuit raising and preserving issue that won in the Supreme Court that ultimately resulted in a re-sentencing hearing.
United States v. Anthony Robinson, 543 U.S. 1115, 125 S.Ct. 1093 (2005); we represented client with appeal to the Fifth Circuit raising and preserving issue that won in the Supreme Court.
Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals
Jesus Rivera was convicted of conspiracy, charged with the same conspiracy again, this time with different allegations of the length and scope of the conspiracy; we represented client on appeal, arguing that the second conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause; Second Circuit agreed, vacating the judgment of conviction and the 17-year sentence and remanding the case with instructions that the district court dismiss the conspiracy count to which the client pleaded guilty. United States v. Lopez, et al., 356 F.3d 463 (2004)
Melvin Tucker was originally sentenced to 324 months; we represented client on appeal, challenging the sentence; Sixth Circuit agreed and vacated the sentence; we represented the client at the new sentencing hearing, eventually obtaining a 15-year reduction. United States v. Melvin Tucker, No. 03-3872 (6th Cir. 2005).
Michael Smith was sentenced to 412 months; we represented him on appeal, challenging his sentence, including increases for drug quantity and extent of conspiracy involvement; Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded; we represented him at the resentencing hearing, obtaining a sentence below the advisory Guidelines of 320 months—a reduction of more than seven and one-half years. United States v. Walter Williams, et al., 158 Fed. Appx. 651, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 24675 (6th Cir., Nov. 15, 2005).
Gustavo Mancha was sentenced to 262 months; his original attorney did not timely appeal; after we represented him with a successful motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to get his appellate rights reinstated, we represented him on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the district court had erred in classifying him as a career offender; conceding error, the government joined our motion to remand; the court of appeals vacated the sentence and remanded; we represented him at a new sentencing hearing, obtaining a sentence of 211 months—a reduction of more than four years. United States v. Gustavo Mancha, No. 06-16201 (11th Cir., Aug. 2, 2007).
Arthur Hollis was sentenced to 240 months; we represented client on appeal, arguing that increased penalties for crack cocaine applied only if the indictment charged and the jury found (or the defendant specifically admitted) that the controlled substance was “crack” cocaine as opposed to cocaine base; Ninth Circuit agreed, finding that the government must charge and prove that “crack” cocaine was involved in the offense. United States v. Arthur L. Hollis, 490 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007).
Antonio Owens was sentenced to life imprisonment; we represented him on appeal, making several arguments; Fourth Circuit vacated his sentence; we represented him at re-sentencing, obtaining a sentence of 25 years. United States v. Johnny Frank Davis, et al., 270 Fed. Appx. 236; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5660 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008).
Tyrone Smith was sentenced to 360 months; we represented client on appeal, challenging the sentence, arguing that his sentence was improper because of the drug amount and enhancements; Third Circuit vacated the client’s sentence and remanded. United States v. Tyrone Smith, 127 Fed. Appx. 608; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 6323 (3rd Cir., Apr. 14, 2005).
Parley Drew Hardman was originally sentenced to 180 months; we represented him on appeal, challenging his sentence on constitutional grounds; Sixth Circuit remanded for a new sentencing hearing. United States v. Parley Drew Hardman, No. 04-5249 (6th Cir. 2006).
Sebastian Williams’ sentence was increased nine levels based upon unproved allegations leading to 224-month sentence; we represented client on appeal, demonstrating the district court had erred, resulting in court of appeals vacating the sentence and remanding the case. United States v. Sebastian Williams, 134 Fed. Appx. 510; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 9825 (3rd Cir. Nov. 4, 2005).
D’Angelo Davis appealed his sentence and won; but on remand, the district court increased his sentence; we represented him in his second appeal, arguing that the district court exceeded its authority by increasing his sentence; Ninth Circuit agreed, vacated the sentence, and specifically instructed the district court to reimpose Mr. Davis’ original sentence but without an enhancement. United States v. DeAngelo Davis, 519 F.3d 926 (2008).
Jermaine McGhee was sentenced to 168 months; we represented client on appeal, challenging the sentence; Sixth Circuit agreed, vacating the sentence; we represented the client at the new sentencing hearing, eventually obtaining a sentence reduction. United States v. Jermaine McGhee, 161 Fed. Appx. 441; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 26788 (6th Cir. Dec, 6, 2005).
Keith McAllister’s sentence was increased on the allegation of firearm possession; we were hired by his attorney to research and prepare the appeal briefs; we argued that the government failed to establish that the two-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) was proper; the Fourth Circuit agreed, finding that the district court could only speculate regarding whether the source ever observed the defendant possessing a weapon during drug activity, and vacated the defendant’s sentence. United States v. Keith McAllister, 272 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 8, 2001).
Enaam Arnaout was sentenced to 136 months; we represented client on appeal, arguing that district court erred in increasing sentence for offense occurring outside country and that Sixth Amendment error occurred; Seventh Circuit agreed, finding no basis for that enhancement and vacating sentence; we represented client at re-sentencing, resulting in reduced sentence. United States v. Enaam Arnaout, No. 03-3297 (7th Cir. 2005).
Kodey Allen deserved a sentence reduction as a result of amendments to the Guidelines. But before he could obtain counsel, seek court-appointed counsel, or request a particular reduction, the district court entered an order granting a small reduction; we represented him on appeal, arguing the district court violated his rights to counsel, notice, and opportunity; the government agreed to ask the court of appeals for a remand; Sixth Circuit granted that motion, remanding the case. United States v. Kodey Allen, No. 08-5356 (6th Cir., Nov. 5, 2008).
William Carnes was convicted following a jury trial; we represented him on appeal, arguing that his conviction for illegal interception of calls was improper; Sixth Circuit reversed the conviction for a new trial on that charge. United States v. William Carnes, 309 F.3d 950 (6th Cir. 2002)
Jaime Moreno was charged with drug trafficking conspiracy in a state he had never visited; he pleaded guilty at attorney’s direction; we represented client on appeal, arguing that his conviction had to be vacated even though he had pleaded guilty; Ninth Circuit agreed and vacated the conviction. United States v. Jaime Moreno, 21 Fed. Appx. 739, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24313 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2001).
Harold Hall was convicted at trial and received a sentence of 30 years in prison. He then contacted ROBINSON & BRANDT, for representation on direct appeal. We worked with Mr. Hall to review his case and determine what arguments to raise on appeal. Hall told us that he could not understand how the jury could have returned a guilty verdict because there was no evidence that he possessed the drugs and guns found in the home. In reversing and vacating Hall’s convictions, the court found that admitting evidence of Hall’s prior drug convictions violated Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) as those convictions were removed in time from the charged offense, and the government failed to establish a sufficient link between the prior convictions and the marijuana and guns found in the home. United States v. Hall, 858 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 2017).
James Sanderson came to ROBINSON &BRANDT, PSC, after pleading guilty to distributing cocaine base and being sentenced to 40 years in prison. Sanderson had been represented by several different court appointed attorneys in the district court, having difficulty communicating with each of them. But our law firm listened to Sanderson, and we earned his trust through the course of our representation. In reviewing his materials we discovered that the government had withheld all information concerning confidential informant used during the investigation. On appeal, we argued that the government’s suppression of discovery material was part of a continuing course of conduct by the prosecution in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and represents “egregiously impermissible conduct” that influenced Sanderson’s decision to plead guilty. Upon review of our arguments, the government was forced to concede that it committed a Brady violation and the Fourth Circuit vacated Sanderson’s conviction and his 40-year sentence. United States v. Sanderson, No. 13-4489 (4th Cir. 2014).
Dwayne Joseph had been convicted of a drug conspiracy following trial in the Western District of Kentucky and sentenced to a mandatory term of 20 years when ROBINSON &BRANDT accepted his case for appeal. We argued that the Fair Sentencing Act applied to his case and, therefore, his mandatory minimum was not 20 years but 10 years. The Sixth Circuit agreed with our argument, vacated Joseph’s sentence, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. But at sentencing the new presentence investigation report concluded that the mandatory minimum in Joseph’s case remained at 20 years. We aggressively contested the probation officer’s recommendation at resentencing. The district court agreed with our arguments and reduced Joseph’s sentence to 10 years imprisonment. United States v. Moore, 2012 US App LEXIS 17896 (6th Cir. 2012).
Jason Bradley came to ROBINSON & BRANDT after being found guilty by a jury for conspiracy to distribute synthetic drugs, conspiracy to import controlled substances, conspiracy to commit promotion money laundering, and conspiracy to commit international money laundering. Picking what to raise on appeal was difficult because several potentially-reversible errors had occurred. Among many different claims, we argued that venue was inappropriate, as no overt act of the conspiracy had occurred in that district. Despite the government’s very long, loud and aggressive protests, the argument succeeded. United States v. Taylor, et al., 784 Fed. Appx. 145 (4th Cir., Aug. 19, 2019). The victory led the Fourth Circuit to vacate all four of Bradley’s convictions and he is now home with his family.
Federal District Courts
David Tipple, a legal firearms dealer, was convicted in a California federal district for shipping firearms by air without giving notice to the airline; he served 12 months and was set to be released; but the government re-charged him with the same offense in a federal district in Georgia; we represented him with the new case; the government offered a sentence of 16 months imprisonment with no credit for time served; we refused the offer; the district court sentenced him to 16 months imprisonment; but over objections from both the government and the probation officer, the sentencing court agreed with our arguments and credited the 12 months Mr. Tipple spent incarcerated for the California offense; because he was in prison for 19 months, he was immediately released. United States v. David Tipple, 04-cr-2 (M.D.Ga. 2004).
Edward Tesko was charged with distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine ice; he knew the substance was not ice and agreed to plead guilty only because his original attorney promised to have the substance independently tested; the attorney failed to have the substance tested, and the district court ended up increasing his sentence well beyond the ten year mandatory minimum; we represented him with a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, obtaining an order to have the substance independently tested; it turned out that the government’s lab results had been wrong; the government agreed to file a joint motion to have him re-sentenced to the statutory minimum. United States v. Edward Tesko, 04-cr-61 (E.D. Tx. 2009).
Edward Campbell pleaded guilty but his attorney failed to challenge the lack of reduction for acceptance of responsibility; the attorney had also failed to challenge one criminal history point, and that had prevented him from getting the benefits of the safety valve; we represented him on the direct appeal; but in light of the attorney’s errors, we knew Mr. Campbell needed to file a § 2255 motion; we brought on local counsel and recommending arguments; the district court re-sentenced him, giving him the reduction for acceptance of responsibility, eliminating one point from the criminal history, applying the safety valve, and then re-sentencing him to time served. United States v. Edward Campbell, 00-cr-503 (D. S.C. 2007).
Jesse Johnson was originally sentenced to 192 months; he was advised by a fellow inmate to file a pro se § 2255 motion; we were hired, and after reviewing the case, noted that a § 2255 would not help; we suggested alternative action, including filing a successful motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582; with the right advice, Mr. Johnson eventually received a new sentence of 117 months—a reduction of more than six years. United States v. Jesse Johnson, 06-cr-48 (E.D. Va. 2009).
Joseph Barnette was originally sentenced on count three to 276 months; we represented him with a successful § 2255 motion, leading to that sentence being reduced to 120 months—a reduction of 13 years. See United States v. Barnette, 02-cr-182 (W.D.Pa. 2003).
Demond Jackson hired our law firm to represent him with a § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence; the government opposed a reduced sentence claiming he was accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine and, as a result, his base offense level did not change; we took the time to point to the record and show that he pleaded guilty only because the government agreed to stipulate that he was responsible for 1.5 kilograms of crack; under that agreement and district court finding, his base offense level, Guidelines range, and sentence should be reduced; the district court agreed and lowered the sentence. United States v. Demond Jackson, 99-cr-15 (S.D. W.V. 2008).
Jeff Harris was convicted of federal drug offenses, but his original attorney failed to object to the lack of safety valve application and failed to file a notice of appeal; we represented him on a § 2255 motion and obtained reinstatement of his appellate rights in order to appeal the issue; the appeal was unsuccessful because the attorney had failed to preserve the safety valve issue, and we represented him with a second “first” § 2255 motion, and obtaining the district court’s certification to proceed with collateral appeal. United States v. Jeffrey Harris, IP-97-63-CR (S.D. In. 2000, 2003).
William Shorter was sentenced to 262 months and had a 20-year mandatory minimum; we represented him with a successful § 3582 motion in which he ended up with a sentence of 210 months, below the statutory minimum. United States v. William Shorter, 98-cr-192 (E.D. Va. 2008).
In 2005, Sirrico Snipes received a sentence of life imprisonment after pleading guilty to federal drug crimes. United States v. Snipes, 2:03-cr-00070-1 EDTN. Six years later, he contacted ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, for advice and representation. We initially helped Snipes prepare and file a supplement to his § 2255 motion, arguing that his mandatory minimum life sentence “should be vacated because his prior drug convictions no longer qualify as predicate felony drug offenses.” The district court denied his § 2255 motion. And the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Undeterred, we filed a petition in the Supreme Court and we were finally successful. The court sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit where we filed a new brief demonstrating that Snipes’ sentence should be vacated. We finally won and the district court vacated Snipes’ life sentence and ordered the sentence be reduced from life to time served, and ordered the Bureau of Prisons to release Snipes.
Leonard Baugh came to our law firm after being sentenced to serve 570 months of imprisonment. He had been sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and received a 300-month consecutive sentence based on the second conviction for possession of a firearm in connection to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). ROBINSON & BRANDT carefully prepared and filed a strong motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for Baugh, arguing that in light of new Supreme Court decisions, that his second § 924(c) offense must be vacated and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing in failing to make the appropriate objections to the career offender enhancement. The district court agreed, granted Baugh’s § 2255 motion and imposed a new sentence of just 188 months, representing a reduction of an unbelievable 382 months from his original sentence. See United States v. Baugh, No. 3:09-cr-00240 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2021).
Vincent Watkins first came to Robinson & Brandt, PSC, seeking assistance with a motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) as a result of the 2007 and 2008 amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines regarding crack cocaine penalties. This fight was particularly important because Watkins had been sentenced to life. The district court denied that first § 3582(c) motion. But Mr. Watkins did not give up and continued to trust ROBINSON & BRANDT because he knew we were fighting for him. When the U.S. Sentencing Commission again amended the Guidelines on November 1, 2011, we suggested Watkins try a second § 3582(c)(2) motion. We predicted that the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes would mean that he would finally receive the reduction in sentence he deserved. Fortunately, we were correct and the district court has granted the motion, reducing Watkins’ sentence from life imprisonment to 360 months! See United States v. Watkins, 2:92-cr-00044-01 (S.D. Oh., Apr. 2015). Because of the amount of time Watkins had already served, the victory meant that Watkins was eligible for release a short time later, was released in 2016, and is now home with his family.
In many other cases where a client’s original attorney has failed to file a notice of appeal, Robinson & Brandt, P.S.C. has been successful in having the federal courts reinstate the right to appeal. This is tremendously important, as the appeal is often the first and best stage for challenging convictions after trial, challenging the sufficiency of the factual basis even when pleading guilty, and challenging all aspects of sentencing. See Kerry DeCay v. United States, 05-cr-186 (E.D. La. 2009); Vincent Tenuto v. United States, 06-cr-484 (N.D. Il. 2009); Daniel Ramos v. United States, 03-cr-345 (E.D. Va. 2007); Juan Rodriguez-Ferreira v. United States, 01-cr-536 (D. P.R. 2006); Mauricio Guzman-Salinas v. United States, 01-cr1420 (W.D. Tx. 2004); Luis Rangel v. United States, 00-cr-317 (S.D.Tx. 2003).
In many other cases, Robinson & Brandt, P.S.C. has been successful in obtaining for our clients reduced sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), even when the government strongly opposes any reduction. See United States v. Cassel Dixon, 97-cr-13 (W.D. N.C. 2009) (successful § 3582 motion resulting in reduction of sentence from 210 months to 168 months even though government opposed the motion); United States v. Waverly Jordan, 04-cr-25 (W.D. Va. 2008) (successful § 3582 motion resulting in reduction of sentence from 282 months to 237 months even though government opposed the motion).
In other cases, Robinson & Brandt, P.S.C. has been successful in helping a client ensure that the district court does not dismiss a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based upon the government’s false claim that the motion was filed late. See, e.g., Fernando Herrera v. United States, 05-cr-50112 (W.D. La. 2009) (district court reconsidering denial of § 2255 motion, finding motion was timely filed and reinstating motion on the docket). Alan Sylvester v. United States, 04-cr-156 (D. Md. 2008) (district court order rejecting government claim that § 2255 motion filed late).
Adrian Broom was sentenced in violation of the plea agreement, as the local police had promised in writing and the government agreed to honor the promises not to hold him accountable for some of his own admissions but then requested enhancements to his sentence for those same admissions; his original attorney went along with the sentence increases and never fought to get the paperwork needed to show that the promises were in writing; we represented him with a § 2255 motion, filing the motion and then seeking permission to initiate the discovery process; the district court agreed to allow discovery that resulted in obtaining documents showing the agreements. United States v. Adrian Broom, 07-cv-2762 (W.D. Tn. 2008).
Examples from State Courts
Rodney Woodson went to trial and was convicted of murder in North Carolina; the problem was that he was not guilty of murder—he had been set up by a rival street level dealer who wanted him out of the picture; we represented him with a motion for appropriate relief and obtained an evidentiary hearing; at that hearing, we called state inmates who testified as to the true murderer’s prison boasts and confessions, leading to a vacation of his conviction.
Newlyn Baker was facing 35 years in prison in Ohio and, upon the demands of his original attorney, agreed to plead guilty with the promise of a short sentence of about five to seven years; unfortunately, he was sentenced to 11 years; we represented him and recommended a motion to withdraw his guilty plea; the motion succeeded, and we again represented him to face the charges; with the leverage available to us, we negotiated a new plea deal that resulted in Mr. Baker obtaining a sentence of just over six years.
Michael Dunn contacted Robinson & Brandt, PSC, six years after being convicted at trial of five counts of assault and sentenced to 55 years. He decided to take a chance and retain us to appeal the denial of his Kentucky post-conviction motion. We were successful and the appellate court vacated his convictions. But then Dunn faced a new trial. We continued to fight for Dunn and filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that a new trial would violate Dunn’s right to be free from double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion and we appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Dunn v. Commonwealth, 2015-SC-000437-MR (KY 2016). After a very long legal battle, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision finding that the Dunn could not be prosecuted a second time and that the indictment must be dismissed.
The attorneys at Robinson & Brandt, P.S.C. represent people who have been charged with federal and state crimes. We are prepared to defend you against the charges and fight for the best possible resolution of the case, whether that is proceeding to trial and seeking acquittal or negotiating the most favorable plea offer available and lowest sentence.
Nearly 25 years ago, we formed ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, to seek justice for defendants and their families. We were driven to defend those charged and convicted of crimes because we had each been affected by a justice system that appeared to be unjust. Our experience, hard work, and dedication to securing the best possible result for our clients is unequaled and we hope your case is another of our success stories. But even if you decide not to retain us, we hope that you make the smart decision to retain an attorney with the experience, skill, and dedication to defend your rights and obtain the relief that you deserve.