2010 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 3-15-2010 

# U S A v . Gl yn R ich a r d s 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 . 09-2956

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_2010

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 2010 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 . Gly n R ich a r d s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1724. 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_2010/1724The Honor able Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge of the United States Court of A ppeals for * the Fe dera l Circuit, sit ting by designation. 1 NON P RECEDENTIAL 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. 09-2956 UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. GLYNRI CH ARDS, Appellant On Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of NewJ erse y District Court No. 1-08-CR-00442-001 District J udg e: The H onorable Renee M. Bumb Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit L .A.R. 34.1(a)

Marc h 8, 2010 Be fore : AMBRO, SMI TH, and MI CHEL , Circuit Judges *

(F iled: March 15, 2010)

OPI NI ONT he D i s t r i ct C our t had j ur i s di ct i on under 18 U . S. C . § 3231. T hi s C our t has 1 juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 2 SMI TH, Circuit Judge. Gly n Richards pled guilty

to one count of ma il fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and one count of

money -launde ringin violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). The D istrict Court de te rm ine d h is Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s r ang e to b e 26 2 to 32 7 mo nth s. Af te r e xpla ini ngits consideration of the sentenc ing f actor s set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the District Court conclude d that an upwa

rd variance was wa

rra nted and se ntence d Richards to 360 months imprisonment. Ri char ds appea ls that sentence . We will affirm the judg ment of the District Court . 1 We reviewRichards’s se ntence for a n abuse of

discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U. S. 3 8, 51 (2 00 7) ; United States v. Tomko , 562 F.3d 558, 567 ( 3d Cir. 2009) (en ba nc). O ur revie w for a

buse of discr etion “proc eeds in two stag es.” Tomko , 562 F.3d at 567. First, we e ns ur e that “ the dis tr ic t c ourt c omm itt e d n o s ignif

ic ant p ro c e dura l e rr or , s uc h a s f a ili ngto c a l c u l at e ( o r

i mp r o p e r l y c a l c u l at i n g ) th e Gu i d e l i n e s r an g e , tr e at i n gth e Gu i d e l i n e s a s m an d at o r y, failingto consider the § 3553( a) f actor s, . . . or fa iling to ade quately explain the chosen sentenc e[.] ” Id. Second, if a district court’s proc edure was c orre ct, we c onsider the se ntence ’s substantive rea sonablene ss. Id. Our re view for substantive rea sonablene ss is highly defe rential. Id. at 568. We will affirm the se ntence “unless no re asonable sentenc ing c ourt would have imposed the same se ntence on that particula r def endant f or the re asons the district cour t provided.” Id. I. Richards a

rgues that his sentenc e is proce durally unrea sonable be cause the District Court3

re lie d a lmo st e xclu siv e ly

on the ne e d f

or de te rr e nc e and

the se ri ou sn e ss o f t

he of fe ns e , whil e failingto give meaning ful consider ation to other § 3553(a ) fa ctors. Specif ically , Richards a

rgues that the District Court paid only “lip service ” to the evide nce he prese nted to support a downwa rd va ri anc e : th e le ngth o f t ime that ha d p a sse d s inc e his pr ior fe lony c onvic tio ns ; hi s f

amil y tie s; h is substantial good f

aith eff orts to cooper ate with the g overnme nt in the investigation and pr os e c uti on

of his c a se ; and

the su ff ic ie nc y of a se nte nc e at th e low

e nd of the Gu ide lin e ra

ng e in deter ringhim from future c riminal conduct. We disagree . The District Court’s a

naly sis of the sentenc ing f actor s enumerated in § 3553(a) was informed a

nd adequa

te. See U nited States v. Thielemann , 575 F.3d 265, 271 ( 3d Cir. 2009). “A se nte nc ingc ourt

do e s n ot h ave to d isc us s a nd make fi nd ing s a s to e a c h o f t he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s if the re c or d makes c lear

the cour t took the fac tors into account in sente ncing .” Tomko , 562 F.3d at 568 (empha sis in original) ( internal quotation marks omitted). Thr oug hout the course of the hearing, inc luding whe n it elicited victim impact testimony and the pa

rties’ a rguments reg arding the § 3553(a ) sentenc ing f actor s, the District Court was pre sented with consider able infor mation reg ardingRichards’s pe rsonal history and cha rac teristics, much of it beinghighly neg ative. B e fo re imp os ingse nte nc e on Ric ha rd s, the Di stric t Co ur

t st ate d th at it

ha d “ take n into consideration all of the fac tors” in § 3553(a ), and while explaining his sentence , the District Court made extensive ref ere nces to seve ral of those fac tors, including Richa rds’s per sonal history and cha rac teristics. That the District Court we ighe d the § 3553(a ) fa ctors diffe rently than Richards doe s not impl y

that it failed to g ive meaning ful consider ation to those fac tors. See United States v. Bungar , 478 F.3d 540, 546 ( 3d Cir. 2007). Thus, we c onclude that the D istrict Court committed no procedur al er ror in sente ncingRichards. See Tomk o , 562 F.3d at 567.4 II. To the extent that Richards ar gues that his sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable, we re je c t th at c onte nti on

a s w e ll. Duri ngse nte nc ing , th e Di stric t Co ur t art ic ulate d s e ve ra l va lid re a so ns fo r t

he se ve ri ty

of the se nte nc e . It no te d th e se ri ou sn e ss o f t he c ri me , r e fe rringto h is havingchea

ted and lied to fa

mily and friends who trusted him, and c hara cter izi ngthe offe nse as “one of the most despicable c rimes imag inable,” shor t of a c rime of violenc e. Also noting Richards’s c ontinuous disrespect for the law, the D istrict Court sentence d Richards in the hope of fosteringin him a “prope r re spect” for the la w. In addition, the District Court rea soned that the se nte nc e wo uld

se rv e a s an e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nt t o Ri c ha

rd s a nd oth e rs wh o mi g ht o the rw ise commit sim ilar crimes. In light of the District Court’s stated re asons, it cannot be sa id that no re a so na ble se nte nc ingc ourt

wo uld have imp os e d th e same se nte nc e on Ric ha rd s. Tomko , 562 F.3d at 567. Ac c or din g ly , w e wi ll a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he Di stric t Co ur

t.