US v. Marcus Richardson, No. 12-4125 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4125 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS RICHARDSON, a/k/a Dank, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00121-FL-2) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: November 26, 2012 and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Richardson, who pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 & Supp. 2012), appeals his seventy-four-month upward variant sentence. Richardson argues on appeal that the district court erred when it imposed criminal his conduct sentence was because adequately he asserts considered that in his his prior criminal history score, and that the district court abused its discretion with regard to the extent of the variance from his Guidelines range. Finding no error, we affirm. We review any criminal sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly reasonableness, standard. under outside a the Guidelines deferential range, for abuse-of-discretion United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ____, 2012 WL 2154910 (2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). court imposes a departure or variant When the district sentence, we consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range. States 2007). v. Hernandez Villanueva, The district court 473 has F.3d 118, flexibility 123 in United (4th Cir. fashioning a sentence outside of the Guidelines range, and need only set 2 forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for its decision. United States v. Diosdado Star, 630 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (alteration omitted), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011). The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. 552 U.S. at 51. is Gall, This deference is due in part because the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import and the judge sees and hears the evidence, makes credibility determinations, has full knowledge facts and gains insights not conveyed by the record. of the Diosdado Star, 630 F.3d at 366 (internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted); see Rita, 551 U.S. at 357 58 (recognizing that the district familiarity with, court the also has individual access case and to, the and greater individual defendant before [the court] than the Commission or the appeals court ). Because the district court identified its reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence, which was based on the Sentencing Guidelines, the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2012) factors, and related to the particular facts of Richardson s 3 case, we conclude that Richardson s sentence is reasonable. See King, 673 F.3d at 284 (concluding that upward variant sentence was reasonable as it was adequately supported by reference to the § 3553(a) factors that the court determined required the sentence ultimately imposed ); Diosdado Star, 630 F.3d at 366 67 (holding that a more than six-year upward variant sentence was substantively reasonable because district court expressly relied on the § 3553(a) factors to support the variance). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
