US v. Bobby Richardson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00015-JRS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998647358].. [09-5015]
Appeal: 09-5015
Document: 62
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY RICHARDSON, a/k/a Ice,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00015-JRS-1)
Submitted:
June 30, 2011
Decided:
August 4, 2011
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles D. Lewis, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 09-5015
Document: 62
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Bobby Richardson of possession with
intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
(2006);
distribution
of
heroin,
in
violation
of
§
841(a);
possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006); and six counts of
forging currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471 (2006).
district
Counsel
court
has
California,
sentenced
submitted
386
him
this
U.S.
738
to
288
months’
The
imprisonment.
Anders
appeal
pursuant
to
(1967),
averring
there
are
v.
no
meritorious issues for appeal but asking this court to review
the validity of the warrant to search Richardson’s business and
the
reasonableness
of
Richardson’s
sentence.
Richardson
has
filed pro se supplemental briefs.
After our initial review, we
ordered
whether
the
parties
to
address
the
district
court
adequately stated its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence
and, if not, whether its failure to do so constitutes harmless
error.
Having
fully
considered
the
arguments
raised
by
Richardson and the Government, * we affirm.
*
In his pro se briefs, Richardson contends that the
prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of an
informant during closing argument. We have reviewed this claim
and conclude that it lacks merit. Richardson also asserts that
counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to discover
that Richardson’s prior convictions were invalid. We decline to
review this claim on direct appeal.
United States v.
(Continued)
2
Appeal: 09-5015
Document: 62
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 3 of 6
Richardson first challenges the validity of the search
warrant.
The relevant inquiry is whether, under the totality of
the circumstances, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for
concluding
there
was
probable
cause
to
issue
the
warrant.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983); United States v.
Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2005).
inquiry,
we
affidavits
warrant
avoid
lest
applying
police
application
“‘hypertechnical’
officers
process
In conducting this
be
encouraged
altogether.”
scrutiny
to
United
of
forgo
the
States
v.
Robinson, 275 F.3d 371, 380 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Gates, 462
U.S. at 236).
This court reviews the district court’s “factual
findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error[] and
. . . legal determinations de novo.”
Grossman, 400 F.3d at 216.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, that the
warrant was valid and supported by probable cause, and that the
district court did not err in denying Richardson’s motion to
suppress.
Richardson also challenges the reasonableness of his
sentence.
This court applies an abuse of discretion standard of
review as to this claim.
Baldovinos,
standard).
434
F.3d
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
233,
239
3
(4th
Cir.
2006)
(providing
Appeal: 09-5015
Document: 62
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 4 of 6
(2007); see also United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th
Cir.
2010).
Reasonableness
consideration
of
reasonableness
of
determining
consider
the
whether
both
a
the
the
requires
procedural
sentence.
procedural
review
Gall,
552
reasonableness
district
court
and
substantive
U.S.
of
a
properly
appellate
at
51.
In
sentence,
calculated
we
the
defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by
the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Id.
“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above,
below,
or
within-Guidelines
record
an
individualized
sentence,
assessment
facts of the case before it.”
it
based
must
on
place
the
on
the
particular
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The
explanation
must
be
sufficient
to
allow
for
“meaningful
appellate review,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), such
that the appellate court need “not guess at the district court’s
rationale.”
Id. at 329.
Richardson correctly asserts that the district court
failed to offer any explanation for the sentence it imposed,
thereby rendering the sentence procedurally unreasonable.
Thus,
“we [must] reverse unless . . . the error was harmless.”
United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010).
“[T]he
[G]overnment may avoid reversal . . . if it demonstrates that
4
Appeal: 09-5015
Document: 62
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 5 of 6
the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or
influence on the result and we can [] say with . . . fair
assurance[]
.
consideration
.
of
.
that
[the
the
defendant’s]
affected the sentence imposed.”
F.3d
832,
838
(4th
district
Cir.
court’s
arguments
would
explicit
not
have
United States v. Boulware, 604
2010)
omitted); Lynn, 592 F.3d at 585.
(internal
quotation
marks
With this standard in mind, we
conclude that the Government satisfied its burden of proving
that the district court’s procedural error was harmless.
See
United States v. Robinson, 460 F.3d 550, 557 (4th Cir. 2006)
(stating burden).
Finally, although Richardson asserts that his
within-Guidelines
sentence
reject his claim.
See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th
Cir.
2007)
(“A
Guidelines
range
is
district
court
did
was
substantively
sentence
within
presumptively
not
abuse
its
the
unreasonable,
proper
Sentencing
reasonable.”).
discretion
we
Thus,
in
the
sentencing
Richardson.
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.
requires
that
counsel
inform
Richardson,
in
This court
writing,
of
the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,
review.
but
If
counsel
Richardson
believes
requests
that
5
such
that
a
a
petition
petition
would
be
be
Appeal: 09-5015
Document: 62
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 6 of 6
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 Richardson.
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
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?