Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    United States v. Bobby Richardson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document discusses a court case where Bobby Richardson was convicted of drug and firearm charges. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. Richardson challenged the search warrant and reasonableness of his sentence. The court found the warrant was valid and sentence was reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Bobby Richardson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    36 views6 pages
    The document discusses a court case where Bobby Richardson was convicted of drug and firearm charges. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. Richardson challenged the search warrant and reasonableness of his sentence. The court found the warrant was valid and sentence was reasonable.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-5015

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a court case where Bobby Richardson was convicted of drug and firearm charges. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. Richardson challenged the search warrant and reasonableness of his sentence. The court found the warrant was valid and sentence was reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    36 views6 pages

    United States v. Bobby Richardson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document discusses a court case where Bobby Richardson was convicted of drug and firearm charges. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. Richardson challenged the search warrant and reasonableness of his sentence. The court found the warrant was valid and sentence was reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    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    UNPUBLISHED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.

    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 Richardsons business and
    the

    reasonableness

    of

    Richardsons

    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 Richardsons prior convictions were invalid. We decline to
    review this claim on direct appeal.
    United States v.
    (Continued)
    2

    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

    forgo
    States

    of
    the
    v.

    Robinson, 275 F.3d 371, 380 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Gates, 462
    U.S. at 236).

    This court reviews the district courts 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


    courts 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 Richardsons 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

    (4th

    Cir.

    2006)

    (providing

    (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

    properly

    appellate

    at

    51.

    In

    sentence,

    calculated

    we
    the

    defendants 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 courts
    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

    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

    defendants]

    affected the sentence imposed.


    F.3d

    832,

    838

    (4th

    district

    Cir.

    courts

    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 courts procedural error was harmless.

    See

    United States v. Robinson, 460 F.3d 550, 557 (4th Cir. 2006)
    (stating burden).
    within-Guidelines

    Finally, although Richardson asserts that his


    sentence

    was

    substantively

    unreasonable,

    we

    reject his claim.

    See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193

    (4th

    Cir.

    2007)

    (A

    Guidelines

    range

    is

    district

    court

    did

    sentence

    within

    presumptively
    not

    abuse

    its

    the

    proper

    Sentencing

    reasonable.).
    discretion

    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 courts 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

    petition

    petition

    would

    be
    be

    frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to


    withdraw from representation.

    Counsels 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

    You might also like