United States v. Richards
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5514
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Richards was Luzerne County’s former Director of Human Resources; he pled guilty to accepting a bribe under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) tied to assisting Continental Consultants.
- He accepted $1,000 and free Mets tickets in exchange for helping Continental Consultants obtain a Luzerne County contract for temporary staffing after the 2006 flood.
- In the Presentence Report, base level was 11 under § 2C1.2(a)(1); +2 for multiple gratuities; +4 for a public official in a high-level decision-making/sensitive position; -3 for acceptance of responsibility; total level 14; advisory range 15–21 months.
- Richards was sentenced on December 13, 2010 to 15 months’ imprisonment and 2 years’ supervised release; he objected to the 4-level § 2C1.2(b)(3) enhancement.
- The district court applied § 2C1.2(b)(3) based on Richards’s job duties and position; Richards argued the enhancement did not apply; the government relied on the job description and evidence of referrals and departmental authority.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit held that the standard of review is clear-error for the district court’s application of the enhancement and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for applying § 2C1.2(b)(3). | Richards urges de novo review. | Court should apply Buford-based deferential review to fact-bound application. | Clear-error review applies. |
| Whether Richards was a high-level public official or in a sensitive position. | Stephenson/Alter show limitations; Richards not high-level. | Job duties and description show substantial influence over decision-making. | District court did not clearly err; Richards could substantially influence decisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001) (deferential review for fact-bound guideline application; case-specific details matter)
- United States v. Brown, 631 F.3d 638 (2011) (clear error for factual determinations in sentencing context)
- United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207 (2008) (clear error review for factual findings in sentencing)
- United States v. Stephenson, 895 F.2d 867 (2d Cir.1990) (de novo assertion rejected; focus on facts to fit guideline definition)
- United States v. Alter, 788 F. Supp. 756 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (high-level/public official determination not automatic; depends on influence/authority)