United States v. Lucas

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60152
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Richard B. Lucas,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:06-CR-1-1

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Richard B. Lucas was convicted of one count of conspiring to commit
wire fraud, nine counts of wire fraud, and one count of conspiring to commit
money laundering. The district court imposed concurrent sentences for the
offenses, which resulted in a total term of 168 months of imprisonment and

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-60152 Document: 00515655687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2020

No. 20-60152
2
five years of supervised release. It also ordered Lucas to pay a $1,100 special
assessment and $1,326,737.40 in restitution, due in monthly installments of
$1,500, beginning 30 days after Lucas’s release from prison. Lucas began
serving his term of supervised release on November 2, 2018.
In 2019, the district court revoked Lucas’s supervised release for
failing to comply with conditions of his release requiring him to pay the
financial obligations arising from his special assessment and order of
restitution. It sentenced him to four months of imprisonment for each of his
counts of conviction, to run concurrently, with 32 months of supervision to
follow as to each count, also to run concurrently.
Lucas appeals that decision. He argues that the district court violated
his due process rights as set forth in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672-73
(1983), and imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence by ordering a term of
imprisonment without first ascertaining whether he willfully refused to pay
or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to pay
his special assessment and restitution. Because Lucas did not raise his
arguments in the district court, review is only for plain error. See Puckett v.
United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135-36 (2009).
Contrary to Lucas’s assertions, the district court’s inquiry was not
insufficient to meet the requirements in Bearden, 461 U.S. at 672-73. The
district court gave Lucas several opportunities at his revocation hearings to
explain why he had not met his payment obligations. After hearing testimony
suggesting that Lucas purposefully remained underemployed, it implicitly
concluded that Lucas had willfully failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts
legally to acquire the resources to pay his obligations. That conclusion is not
clearly erroneous in light of the record as a whole. See id. at 668. The district
court did not violate Lucas’s due process rights or impose a plainly
unreasonable sentence when it sentenced Lucas to a term of imprisonment.
Case: 20-60152 Document: 00515655687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2020

No. 20-60152
3
See id. at 672-73; United States v. Winding, 817 F.3d 910, 913-14 (5th Cir.
2016). Lucas has not shown error, much less “clear or obvious error” on the
part of the district court. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Fuentes,
906 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2018).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-60152 Document: 00515655687 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/01/2020