2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-26-2009 

# U S A v . R icho P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-4188

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . R icho " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 780. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/780NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT

_________ No. 07-4188

_________ UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. EL L I OTT RI CHO, a/k/a Timothy

Gre en ElliottRicho, Ap pe lla nt

___________________ Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di stric t of

Pe nn sylva

nia No. 2-06-c r-00468- 001 (District Judge: The Honora ble Robert F . Kelly

)

___________________ Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

J une 2, 2009 Be fore : McKEE, HA RDI MAN, and G REENBE RG Circuit Judges

(F iled August 26, 2009)

OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T2

McKe e, Circuit J udg e, El lio tt Ri c ho a

pp e a ls the se nte nc e that w a s im po se d p ur su ant t o h is guil ty ple a to s ix counts of bank r obbery

and one c ount of attempted ba nk robber y in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) . For

the re asons that follow, we will affirm. I . Inasmuch a s we a

re writing primarily

for the pa

rties who ar e fa

miliar with this case, we need not r ecite the fac tual or proc edura l history . Richo argues that the sente nce w as unrea sonable be cause the sentenc ing c ourt failed to a naly ze all releva

nt § 3553(a) f

actor s. Specifica lly , he conte nds the court should have considere d a lesser sentenc e in light of

his history of drugaddiction and his ag e which makes it unlikely that he will commit another off ense when rele ased. We reviewa district cour t’s sentenc e for

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 586, 594 (2007). In doing so, w e must “first ensur e that the district cour t committed no signific ant proc edura l error , such as f ailing to c alculate (or imprope rly calc ulating) the Gu ide lin e s r ang e , tr e atin gthe Gu ide lin e s a s ma nd ator y , f a ili ng to c on sid e r t

he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s, selec ting a

sentenc e base d on clea

rly err oneous fa cts, or fa iling to ade quately explain the chosen sentenc e.” Id . at 597. We will uphold the sentence if the re cord disclose s “mea ningf ul consideration of the rele vant statutory fac tors and the e x erc ise of indepe ndent judg ment, based on a we ighingof the re levant fa ctors.” United States v. Grier , 475 F.3d 556, 571- 72 (3d Cir. 2007) (en ba nc). The rec ord must show that the sentenc ing judg e “se tforth enough to satisfy [us] that he has c onsidered the parties’ arguments and has a rea soned basis for

exercisinghis own leg al decisionmakingauthority .” Ri ta v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Howe ver, the3

sentenc ing c ourt nee d not make spec ific finding s on the rec ord as to ea ch fa ctor if it is clea r that all pertinent fa ctors have been c onsidered. United States v. Lessner , 498 F.3d 185, 203 ( 3d Cir. 2007). Richo’s cha lleng e to the re asonable ness of the se ntence is meritless. The district court listened to arguments about the sig nificanc e of his long standingdrugaddiction duringRicho’s reque st for a le sser sente nce. ( App. 5-8). Mor eover , the district court a dopted the finding s of the pre sentenc e re port, which a lso addresse d Richo’s history of drugaddiction. The c ourt clea rly considere d that fac tor. We will not conclude that the re sulting sentenc e wa s unre a so na

ble me re ly

be c a us e these nte nc ingjud g e did no t atta c h th e same imp or tanc e to Ric ho ’s his tor

y of su bs tanc e a bu se a s Ri c ho do e s. Simi larly , there is nothing to sug g est that the district court f ailed to consider

Richo’s ag e. Although he wa s 42 y ear s old when sentenc ed, Richo is a ca ree r off ender with a long his tor y of se ri ou s c ri me s. Ric ho c ite s United States v. Nellum , an unpublished district court decision whe re a

sentenc e wa s imposed below the def endant’ s guideline ra

ng e base d partly

on the def endant’ s advanc ed ag e. 2005 WL300073 (N.D. I nd. 2005). We nee d not respond to an unpublished district court opinion. That is particularly true whe re, a s in Nellum , th e c a se involved a def

endant whose criminal history involved only

two misdemeanor dr

ugpossession c onvic tio ns , a

nd the de fe nd ant s uf

fe re d f ro m mu lti ple he a lthpr ob le ms whic h w e re lik e ly to worsen be fore his relea se. The district cour

t found that Richo committed a “ba rra g e of r obberie s” in a short pe riod of tim e , in fl ic tin gfe ar i n th e ba nk te lle rs wh o w e re the vic tim s o f h is r ob be ry sp re e . G ive n a ll of the c ircumstance s here , including the persona l char acte ristics and bac kground of the4

defe ndant and the se riousness of his conduc t, we believe that the cour t’s sentenc e wa s imposed a ft e r m e anin g fu l c on sid e ratio n o f a ll o f t he fa c tor s in

§ 3 55 3( a ). Mo re ov e r, the re c or d s ug g e sts that th e se nte nc ingc ourt

did c on sid e r R ic ho ’s a g e and su bs tanc e a bu se pr ob le ms b e c a

us e his sentenc e is at the a

bsolute bottom of the applicable a dvisory guideline ra

ng e. The ref

ore the re was no a buse of discr etion and the se ntence that was imposed is rea sonable. I I . For all of the a

bove re asons, we a ffirm the district c ourt’s sentenc e.