United States v. Corey Robinson

── United States v. Corey Robinson ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-4213 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-4213 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COREY TREVARIS ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:24-cr-00231-CCE-1) Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 26, 2026 Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Seth A. Neyhart, LAW OFFICE OF SETH A. NEYHART, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton T. Barrett, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4213 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Corey Trevaris Robinson pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Robinson to 120 months’ imprisonment, below his advisory imprisonment range under the Sentencing Guidelines of 151 to 188 months. On appeal, Robinson argues that his prison term is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Claybrooks, 90 F.4th 248, 257 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). “First, we determine whether the district court has committed significant procedural error.” United States v. McKinnie, 21 F.4th 283, 289 (4th Cir. 2021); see United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 215, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that we must “review the sentence for procedural reasonableness before addressing whether it is substantively reasonable,” even if parties do not address matter in their briefs). Such error includes improperly calculating the Guidelines range, insufficiently considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or inadequately explaining the selected sentence. United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020). “Second, we consider whether the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable.” McKinnie, 21 F.4th at 289. “A sentence is substantively unreasonable only where under the totality of the circumstances, the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Devine, 40 F.4th 139, 153 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]ny sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4213 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 3 of 4 range is presumptively reasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] defendant can only rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Everett, 91 F.4th 698, 714 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). We are satisfied that Robinson’s 120-month prison term is procedurally reaso