United States v. Richardson

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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