Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 13-1995
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
GERALD T. RICH, JR.,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Thompson, Selya and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
Mary Davis and Tisdale & Davis, P.A. on brief for appellant.
Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, and Renée M.
Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
January 12, 2015
Per curiam. After defendant-appellant Gerald T. Rich,
Jr. pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to distribute
marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and making false
statements to federal agents, see 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), the
district court sentenced him to a 72-month term of immurement on
the drug-trafficking count and a concurrent 60-month term of
immurement on the false statement count. Rich appeals, asserting
only that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
There is no reason to tarry. We have carefully reviewed
the plea agreement, the change-of-plea colloquy, the undisputed
portions of the presentence investigation report, and the
transcript of the disposition hearing. See United States v.
Almonte-Nuñez, 771 F.3d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 2014). We are fully
satisfied that the district court's sentence, which was 25 months
below the bottom of a properly calculated guideline sentencing
range, was substantively reasonable. See United States v. King,
741 F.3d 305, 310 (1st Cir. 2014) ("It is a rare below-the-range
sentence that will prove vulnerable to a defendant's claim of
substantive unreasonableness.").
In the mine-run of criminal cases, there is no single
appropriate sentence but, rather, a universe of reasonable
sentences. See United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212, 234 (1st
Cir. 2011). The sentence imposed in this case falls squarely
within this universe.
-2-
Here, moreover, the district court made a thorough and
meticulous appraisal of Rich's personal history and
characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the offenses of
conviction, and other factors relevant to sentencing. The court
explicated a plausible rationale for the sentence imposed and
reached an eminently fair result. No more was exigible to defeat
a claim of substantive unreasonableness. See United States v.
Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 96 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. Jiménez-
Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 519 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc).
We need go no further. Appellate courts should not write
at length to know other end than to hear their own words resonate.
See deBenedictis v. Brady-Zell (In re Brady-Zell), 756 F.3d 69, 71
(1st Cir. 2014). Because Rich's appeal is patently meritless, we
say no more. Instead, we summarily affirm Rich's sentence. See
1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
Affirmed.
-3-