US v. Richardson, No. 06-4624 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4624 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY C. RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (1:02-cr-00062; 1:03-cr-00051) Submitted: January 19, 2007 Decided: February 6, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Pizzuti, MCCAMIC, SACCO, PIZZUTI & MCCOID, P.L.L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rita R. Valdrini, Acting United States Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry C. Richardson appeals his sentence imposed after resentencing,* on his conviction for conspiracy to engage in interstate travel in aid of a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(3), 371 (2000), and use of a telephone to facilitate the distribution of heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 843(b), (d)(1) (2000). Following a resentencing hearing, the district court adopted its findings from the original sentencing hearing and imposed the same 108-month sentence it previously imposed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Richardson's sentence. Richardson first challenges the district court's application of a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof in resentencing. This assertion is without merit. See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 121 (2006) (after Booker, the sentencing court continues to make factual findings concerning preponderance of the evidence). sentencing factors by a Richardson also asserts that because of the firearm enhancement, he was not eligible for a five hundred hour drug program. Richardson argues his sentence should * This court previously affirmed Richardson's convictions, but remanded his case to the district court for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which case was decided after the original sentencing hearing. See United States v. Richardson, No. 04-4076, 132 F. App x 492 (4th Cir. 2005). - 2 - be reduced by a year as if he had completed the program. We disagree and conclude the argument is without merit. Finally, Richardson challenges the district court s refusal to grant him a variance based on the crack/powder cocaine disparity of the sentencing guidelines. The district court properly rejected this request pursuant to our decision in United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625, 627 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, June 20, 2006 (No. 05-11659). Because the district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline range factors, we and find the relevant Richardson s 18 U.S.C. sentence to § 3553(a) be (2000) reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm Richardson s sentence. We dispense with oral contentions argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
