United States v. Riddle

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-14-2006
USA v. Riddle
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2742
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Riddle" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1434.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1434
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2742
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LOUIS RIDDLE,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 04-cr-00363)
Honorable William J. Nealon, District Judge
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 6, 2006
BEFORE: ROTH and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and
BUCKWALTER, District Judge*
(Filed March 14, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
*Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Louis Riddle appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered on May
20, 2005, after his plea of guilty to an information charging him with conspiracy by an
unlawful user of controlled substances to transport and receive firearms through interstate
commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court sentenced Riddle to a 42-
month custodial term to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The
district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
On this appeal Riddle does not challenge his conviction but advances the following
contentions with respect to his sentence:
I. The district court erred in enhancing Riddle’s sentence based upon
its finding by a preponderance of the evidence, that he believed he
transported guns to be used for crime.
A. Riddle had no reason to believe that he was transporting
guns for criminal purposes.
B. The district court improperly based its finding on facts
found by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a
reasonable doubt.
II. The district court erred when it imposed sentence without
explicitly articulating its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, making the sentence unreviewable and
unreasonable.
Riddle’s first contention relates to the court applying a 4-level enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). By reason of that 4-level enhancement Riddle’s total offense
level was increased from 17 to 21, thus increasing his sentencing range from 27 to 33
months to 41 to 51 months predicated on his Criminal History Category of II. Section
2
2K2.1(b)(5) provides for a 4-level enhancement if the defendant possessed or transferred
any firearm with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or
possessed in connection with another felony offense. Riddle asserts that the court erred in
applying this enhancement as the facts did not support it. Moreover, he contends that the
court erroneously found the facts justifying application of the guideline by a mere
preponderance of evidence whereas the beyond the reasonable doubt standard was
applicable.
We reject these contentions for the following reasons. First, the court indicated
that it was making its findings both beyond a reasonable doubt and by a preponderance of
the evidence. Second, in any event, under United States v. Cooper, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
3437 at *14, F.3d (3d Cir. 2006), and United States v. Miller, 417 F.3d 358, 363
(3d Cir. 2005), a finding by a preponderance of the evidence was adequate. Third, the
record supports the court’s findings, and thus we cannot upset them. See United States v.
Ortiz, 878 F.2d 125, 126-27 (3d Cir. 1989).
We also reject Riddle’s second contention. In this regard we point out that the
court was well aware of the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as it explicitly found
that it was imposing a “reasonable [sentence] in view of the considerations expressed” in
that section. App. at 75. Moreover, we are satisfied from the court’s comments at the
sentencing hearing that it adequately considered the applicable sentencing factors.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of conviction and sentence entered May
25, 2005, will be affirmed.
3