United States v. Richard Tripp ( 2024 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3589
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Richard E. Tripp
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: September 23, 2024
Filed: November 22, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Richard Tripp received a 235-month prison sentence after a jury found him
guilty of both distributing and possessing child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(2), (4)(B). Although he argues that the government did not prove either
crime and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, we affirm.
I.
A search of Tripp’s basement bedroom turned up electronic devices
containing his personal emails, banking information, and hundreds of images of
child pornography. As he told the officer at the beginning of the search, any child
pornography on them “would be [his] responsibility.” The jury reasonably drew the
same conclusion. See United States v. Grauer, 701 F.3d 318, 324 (8th Cir. 2012)
(reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence de novo).
It is true that Tripp lived with other sex offenders, one of whom was caught
with child pornography that day. The images found on Tripp’s devices, however,
were a different “genre,” which supported the reasonable inference that each set
belonged to a different person, even though Tripp later testified that he was not
responsible for any of it. See United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 1160, 1168 (8th Cir.
2014) (requiring a “nexus linking the defendant to the contraband”). “Credibility
determinations,” after all, “are uniquely within the province of the [jury].” United
States v. Smith, 4 F.4th 679, 687 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
II.
Sentencing decisions, on the other hand, are committed to the district court’s1
discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (laying out the standard of review). Among the most relevant factors in setting
Tripp’s sentence were his dishonesty and “personal history,” including his “prior
criminal” behavior. Even after considering “the length of the . . . sentence,” “his
age,” and the likelihood he would die in prison, the court gave him a 235-month
sentence. It did not abuse its discretion in doing so. See United States v. Moua, 895
1
The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
-2-
F.3d 556, 560 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (discussing the sentencing court’s “wide”
discretion (citation omitted)).
III.
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-3-