United States v. Richardson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6475
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Richardson was convicted by a jury of two counts under 18 U.S.C. §1503 and one count under 18 U.S.C. §1001 for falsely presenting himself as an attorney in Reyes’s immigration proceedings.
- The government proved two initial-appearance hearings occurred where Richardson, posing as Reyes’s attorney, sought to influence dismissals and resets.
- Evidence showed Richardson fabricated licenses, misrepresented bar memberships, and misled the court, AUSA, and clerk, leading to a dismissal in Reyes’s illegal reentry case.
- The district court denied a Rule 29 acquittal and later applied five sentencing enhancements, yielding a guideline range and a 65-month term, with counts running concurrently, which Richardson appeals.
- Richardson also challenges the district court’s jury instruction on the term 'corruptly' and whether the enhancements were harmless errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of §1503 evidence. | Richardson acted to influence justice, not to obstruct | Actions lacked corrupt intent and effect | Sufficient evidence supported obstruction of justice |
| Sufficiency of §1001 materiality. | False statements were material to dismissal decision | Materiality not shown; decision driven by Reyes’s immigration appeal | Sufficient evidence supported material false statement |
| Instruction on 'corruptly'. | Pattern instruction misdefines corruptly | Pattern instruction is correct and Haas definition aligns | District court did not abuse discretion; pattern instruction correct |
| Harmlessness of guideline enhancements. | Enhancements may affect sentence range | Any error was harmless given district court’s alternative reasoning | Any error harmless; sentence preserved under review of reasonableness |
| Overall sentencing sufficiency and reasonableness. | Affirmed sentence; enhancements error deemed harmless and alternative findings supported the result |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. United States, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) (omnibus clause requires nexus between act and proceeding)
- United States v. Williams, 874 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1989) (§1503 requires intent to interfere with due administration of justice)
- United States v. De La Rosa, 171 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 1999) (three elements and nexus for §1503 obstruction)
- United States v. Sharpe, 193 F.3d 852 (5th Cir. 1999) (nexus element in §1503 obstruction)
- United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1978) (omnibus clause prohibits interference with administration of justice)
- Gaudin v. United States, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (materiality framework for false statements to government)
- Haas v. United States, 583 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1978) (definition of corruptly as improper motive consistent with pattern instruction)
- Poindexter v. United States, 951 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (definition of corruptly discussed in Haas context)
- United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138 (1921) (endeavor to obstruct justice suffices even without success)