2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-26-2009

USA v. Richo

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-4188

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Richo" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 780.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/780
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________

No. 07-4188

_________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

ELLIOTT RICHO,

a/k/a Timothy Green

 Elliott Richo,

Appellant 

___________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

No. 2-06-cr-00468-001

(District Judge: The Honorable Robert F. Kelly) 

___________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 2, 2009

Before: McKEE, HARDIMAN, and GREENBERG Circuit Judges

(Filed August 26, 2009) 

OPINION OF THE COURT
2

McKee, Circuit Judge,

Elliott Richo appeals the sentence that was imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to six

counts of bank robbery and one count of attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2113(a). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. 

I. 

Inasmuch as we are writing primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we

need not recite the factual or procedural history. Richo argues that the sentence was

unreasonable because the sentencing court failed to analyze all relevant § 3553(a) factors. 

Specifically, he contends the court should have considered a lesser sentence in light of his history

of drug addiction and his age which makes it unlikely that he will commit another offense when

released. 

We review a district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128

S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). In doing so, we must “first ensure that the district court committed no

significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the

Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors,

selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen

sentence.” Id. at 597. We will uphold the sentence if the record discloses “meaningful

consideration of the relevant statutory factors and the exercise of independent judgment, based on

a weighing of the relevant factors.” United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 571-72 (3d Cir. 2007)

(en banc). The record must show that the sentencing judge “setforth enough to satisfy [us] that

he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal

decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). However, the
3

sentencing court need not make specific findings on the record as to each factor if it is clear that

all pertinent factors have been considered. United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 203 (3d Cir.

2007). 

Richo’s challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence is meritless. The district court

listened to arguments about the significance of his longstanding drug addiction during Richo’s

request for a lesser sentence. (App. 5-8). Moreover, the district court adopted the findings of

the presentence report, which also addressed Richo’s history of drug addiction. The court

clearly considered that factor. We will not conclude that the resulting sentence was

unreasonable merely because the sentencing judge did not attach the same importance to

Richo’s history of substance abuse as Richo does.

Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that the district court failed to consider Richo’s

age. Although he was 42 years old when sentenced, Richo is a career offender with a long

history of serious crimes. Richo cites United States v. Nellum, an unpublished district court

decision where a sentence was imposed below the defendant’s guideline range based partly on

the defendant’s advanced age. 2005 WL 300073 (N.D. Ind. 2005). We need not respond to an

unpublished district court opinion. That is particularly true where, as in Nellum, the case

involved a defendant whose criminal history involved only two misdemeanor drug possession

convictions, and the defendant suffered from multiple health problems which were likely to

worsen before his release. 

The district court found that Richo committed a “barrage of robberies” in a short period

of time, inflicting fear in the bank tellers who were the victims of his robbery spree. Given all

of the circumstances here, including the personal characteristics and background of the
4

defendant and the seriousness of his conduct, we believe that the court’s sentence was imposed

after meaningful consideration of all of the factors in § 3553(a). Moreover, the record suggests

that the sentencing court did consider Richo’s age and substance abuse problems because his

sentence is at the absolute bottom of the applicable advisory guideline range. Therefore there

was no abuse of discretion and the sentence that was imposed is reasonable.

II. 

For all of the above reasons, we affirm the district court’s sentence.