United States of America v. Elliott Richo, a/k/a Timothy Green Elliott Richo

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________
No. 07-4188
_________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ELLIOTT RICHO,
a/k/a Timothy Green
Elliott Richo,
Appellant
___________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
No. 2-06-cr-00468-001
(District Judge: The Honorable Robert F. Kelly)
___________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 2, 2009
Before: McKEE, HARDIMAN, and GREENBERG Circuit Judges
(Filed August 26, 2009)
OPINION OF THE COURT

-- 1 of 4 --

2
McKee, Circuit Judge,
Elliott Richo appeals the sentence that was imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to six
counts of bank robbery and one count of attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
I.
Inasmuch as we are writing primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we
need not recite the factual or procedural history. Richo argues that the sentence was
unreasonable because the sentencing court failed to analyze all relevant § 3553(a) factors.
Specifically, he contends the court should have considered a lesser sentence in light of his history
of drug addiction and his age which makes it unlikely that he will commit another offense when
released.
We review a district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128
S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). In doing so, we must “first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Id. at 597. We will uphold the sentence if the record discloses “meaningful
consideration of the relevant statutory factors and the exercise of independent judgment, based on
a weighing of the relevant factors.” United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 571-72 (3d Cir. 2007)
(en banc). The record must show that the sentencing judge “setforth enough to satisfy [us] that
he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). However, the

-- 2 of 4 --

3
sentencing court need not make specific findings on the record as to each factor if it is clear that
all pertinent factors have been considered. United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 203 (3d Cir.
2007).
Richo’s challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence is meritless. The district court
listened to arguments about the significance of his longstanding drug addiction during Richo’s
request for a lesser sentence. (App. 5-8). Moreover, the district court adopted the findings of
the presentence report, which also addressed Richo’s history of drug addiction. The court
clearly considered that factor. We will not conclude that the resulting sentence was
unreasonable merely because the sentencing judge did not attach the same importance to
Richo’s history of substance abuse as Richo does.
Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that the district court failed to consider Richo’s
age. Although he was 42 years old when sentenced, Richo is a career offender with a long
history of serious crimes. Richo cites United States v. Nellum, an unpublished district court
decision where a sentence was imposed below the defendant’s guideline range based partly on
the defendant’s advanced age. 2005 WL 300073 (N.D. Ind. 2005). We need not respond to an
unpublished district court opinion. That is particularly true where, as in Nellum, the case
involved a defendant whose criminal history involved only two misdemeanor drug possession
convictions, and the defendant suffered from multiple health problems which were likely to
worsen before his release.
The district court found that Richo committed a “barrage of robberies” in a short period
of time, inflicting fear in the bank tellers who were the victims of his robbery spree. Given all
of the circumstances here, including the personal characteristics and background of the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
defendant and the seriousness of his conduct, we believe that the court’s sentence was imposed
after meaningful consideration of all of the factors in § 3553(a). Moreover, the record suggests
that the sentencing court did consider Richo’s age and substance abuse problems because his
sentence is at the absolute bottom of the applicable advisory guideline range. Therefore there
was no abuse of discretion and the sentence that was imposed is reasonable.
II.
For all of the above reasons, we affirm the district court’s sentence.

-- 4 of 4 --