United States v. Richardson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 20-30472     Document: 00515948610         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/22/2021
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 20-30472                            July 22, 2021
    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Melissa Richardson,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 5:19-CR-115-1
    Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Melissa Richardson was convicted by a jury of 15 counts of acquiring
    controlled substances by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or
    subterfuge, violations of 
    21 U.S.C. § 843
    (a)(3). She was sentenced to 12
    months and one day as to each count of conviction, to run concurrently. The
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
    Case: 20-30472      Document: 00515948610          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/22/2021
    No. 20-30472
    district court also imposed a year of supervised release as to each count of
    conviction, also to run concurrently. Richardson appeals, challenging the
    district court’s denial of her motion to suppress verbal and written
    statements she made to agents with the Department of Veterans Affairs
    Office of Inspector General as well as the sufficiency of the evidence.
    First, when the entire record is reviewed in the light most favorable to
    the Government and in light of the express credibility determinations, the
    district court did not err in concluding that Richardson was not in custody for
    purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
    , 478-79 (1966). See Stansbury
    v. California, 
    511 U.S. 318
    , 323 (1994); United States v. Gibbs, 
    421 F.3d 352
    ,
    356-57 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Harrell, 
    894 F.2d 120
    , 123 (5th Cir.
    1990). Similarly, the totality of the circumstances indicate that Richardson’s
    verbal and written statements were voluntarily given. See United States v.
    Cardenas, 
    410 F.3d 287
    , 293 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court therefore did
    not err in denying her motion to suppress. See Gibbs, 
    421 F.3d at 356-57
    .
    Second, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
    verdict, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that
    Richardson obtained the hydrocodone pills by misrepresentation, fraud,
    forgery, deception, or subterfuge. See United States v. Rodriguez, 
    553 F.3d 380
    , 389 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Bass, 
    490 F.2d 846
    , 857 (5th Cir.
    1974), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lyons, 
    731 F.2d 243
     (5th
    Cir. 1984) (en banc).     As such, her related argument that there was
    insufficient evidence to support her conviction because the jury’s acquittal
    of one count is “irreconcilably inconsistent” with the guilty verdicts on
    counts 2 through 16 is unavailing. See United States v. Gieger, 
    190 F.3d 661
    ,
    664 (5th Cir. 1999).
    AFFIRMED.
    2