USA v. James Richardson

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant James Patrick Richardson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11203

Date Filed: 11/09/2016

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11203
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00462-SCJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES PATRICK RICHARDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 9, 2016)
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11203

Date Filed: 11/09/2016

Page: 2 of 5

James Richardson appeals the sentence a district court imposed when he
violated the conditions of his supervised release. For the reasons set forth below,
we affirm.
Richardson completed a term of incarceration in March 2013 and began a
five year term of supervised release. As relevant here, Richardson’s supervised
release was conditioned on his agreement to undergo drug screening in accordance
with the probation office’s established screening procedures and submit timely
reports and documentation to his probation officer. In January 2016, the probation
office petitioned the district court for revocation of Richardson’s supervised
release, alleging that he had committed six violations of the terms of his release,
including: attempting to alter the results of a drug test; using drugs; failing to
report a drug screening; failing to follow the probation officer’s instructions;
failing to submit monthly reports as instructed; and failure to submit proof of
employment. The district court conducted a hearing at which Richardson admitted
all six violations.
The district court calculated an advisory guideline range of 6 to 12 months’
imprisonment and noted that the statutory maximum for the violations was two
years’ imprisonment. Richardson asserted that his conduct was the result of a
relapse in his drug addiction and asked that the district court send him to inpatient

2

Case: 16-11203

Date Filed: 11/09/2016

Page: 3 of 5

treatment rather than prison.1 The government recommended a sentence of 12
months’ imprisonment and, in support, called Richardson’s probation officer
Shannon Brewer to testify. Brewer testified that Richardson consistently was
resistant to treatment and her supervision. She provided the court with several
examples of his resistance, including his reluctance to obtain full-time
employment, refusal to sign a waiver so that Brewer could verify he was receiving
drug treatment through a private company, and failure to appear for his first drug
treatment session set up by the probation office. Based on this testimony, the
district court accepted the government’s recommendation and sentenced
Richardson to 12 months’ imprisonment with no term of supervised release to
follow.
On appeal, Richardson challenges the substantive reasonableness of this
sentence. We review the reasonableness of a sentence, including one imposed
upon the revocation of supervised release, for an abuse of discretion. United States
v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc); United States v.
Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006). When imposing a sentence for
violating terms of supervised release, a district court must consider the factors
1

Richardson also asked the district court to place him back on supervised release, but, as
the government noted, revocation of supervised release was mandatory under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(g)(3) and (4) because Richardson had refused to comply with drug screening
requirements and had tested positive for drugs more than three times in a calendar year. Thus,
the only question was whether Richardson was a candidate for inpatient drug treatment or should
be again incarcerated.
3

Case: 16-11203

Date Filed: 11/09/2016

Page: 4 of 5

delineated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the nature and circumstances of the
offense and history and characteristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence
imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public
from further crimes by the defendant, and to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training; and the kinds of sentences available and
established sentencing ranges. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(5). The weight to be
accorded any given factor generally is committed to the sound discretion of the
district court. United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1361-62 (11th Cir.
2014). A district court abuses its discretion by failing to afford consideration to
relevant factors that were due significant weight, giving significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or by committing a clear error of judgment in
considering the proper factors. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189.
Richardson argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
the district court failed to take into account his ability to maintain employment,
desire to obtain treatment for his addiction, and long period of successful
supervised release prior to the January 2016 violations. We disagree. Despite
Richardson’s assertion that he wished to enter a drug treatment program, ample
evidence about Richardson’s resistance to drug treatment supported the district
court’s determination that he was not suited for inpatient treatment. And the
district court was entitled, after hearing all the testimony and argument at the
4

Case: 16-11203

Date Filed: 11/09/2016

Page: 5 of 5

revocation hearing, to weigh Richardson’s resistance to treatment over the facts
that he was able to sustain a job, wanted to overcome his addiction, and sustained a
significant period of supervised release without violations. See Dougherty, 754
F.3d at 1362-62.
Richardson has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion
in imposing a within-guidelines 12-month term of incarceration. We therefore
affirm Richardson’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.

5