United States v. Gerald Richards
508 F. App'x 444
6th Cir.2012Background
- Richards conspired with Dr. Shafinia to distribute oxycodone, paying cash and providing a list of recipients who would obtain prescriptions.
- During the conspiracy Richards distributed pills and used some for personal use.
- Indicted January 29, 2009 on one conspiracy count and four aiding/abetting counts; Richards elected to go to trial, then entered a guilty plea after the first trial day.
- Plea hearing and questionnaire established Richards understood the charges; PSR proposed a guideline range of 151–188 months; district court held a two-day sentencing hearing.
- District court varied downward for charitable acts and sentenced Richards to concurrent 135-month terms on each count.
- On appeal Richards challenges the guilty plea and the reasonableness of the sentence, and the government seeks no cross-appeal; the court affirms some rulings but remands for resentencing due to a criminal history category error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Richards' guilty plea valid to all charges? | Richards did not knowingly plead to all charges. | Court properly accepted plea given Richards’ clear intent to plead guilty to all counts. | Guilty plea valid; accepted. |
| Did the district court ensure Richards understood the nature of each charge under Rule 11(b)(1)(G)? | Court failed to ensure understanding of at least some charges. | Record shows explicit explanations and Richards’ affirmations of understanding. | No error in Rule 11(b)(1)(G) compliance. |
| Was there a sufficient factual basis for Count 26 at sentencing? | Factual basis absent or insufficient for Count 26. | Sentencing evidence provides ample factual basis for Count 26. | Ample basis; any error harmless. |
| Should Richards' criminal history category be corrected on remand? | Criminal history counted a 1995 conviction improperly. | Calculation should be reviewed; district court erred in counting 1995 conviction. | Remand to correct criminal history category; vacate and resentence. |
| Is the substantive reasonableness of the sentence improper beyond the remand need? | Sentence longer than co-conspirators' could be unreasonable. | Remand precludes ruling on substantive reasonableness at this time. | Not addressed due to remand on criminal history. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lalonde, 509 F.3d 750 (6th Cir. 2007) (plain-error standard for missing claims on appeal)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard components)
- United States v. McCreary-Redd, 475 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2007) (Rule 11(b)(1)(G) sufficiency considerations)
- United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2008) (credibility and witness testimony considerations)
- United States v. King, 169 F.3d 1035 (6th Cir. 1999) (co-conspirator credibility and witness motive factors)
- United States v. Esteppe, 483 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2007) (district court credibility determinations given deference)
- United States v. Cooke, 915 F.2d 250 (6th Cir. 1990) (district court opportunity to assess credibility in testimony)
- United States v. Novales, 589 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2009) (remand for resentencing when sentencing error identified)