United States v. Richart, No. 10-1977 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to make a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 371 and one count of making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, in connection with the disappearance and death of her niece. The district court sentenced defendant to sixty months' imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively, and three years' supervised release. Defendant appealed her sentence. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) and even if there was error, any error was harmless; there was no procedural error in the district court's decision to vary up to the statutory maximum on each count under U.S.S.G. 5K2.9; the district court did not err in running the two 60 month sentences consecutive to each other; defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable; and the conditions of supervised release were affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not err in imposing a two- level adjustment under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(c) for role in the offense; even if it was error to impose the adjustment, the court stated it would impose the same sentence without the adjustment, so the error would have been harmless; in a prosecution for conspiracy to make a false statement and the making of a false statement, it was not error to impose an upward departure under Guidelines Sec. 5K2.9 based on the fact that defendant committed the offenses to conceal another crime; any procedural error in applying the section would be harmless in light of the fact that the court justified its sentencing decision on both the guideline and 3553(a) factors; the court did not commit any procedural error in its decision to vary up to the statutory maximum on each count; court did not err in making defendant's two sixty-month sentences consecutive, and the decision did not violate Guidelines Sec. 5G1.2; sentences were not substantively unreasonable; special conditions of supervised release affirmed. Judge Bye, dissenting.
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.