Laredo solo David Almaraz , attorney for Dale Allen Richardson Jr., says his client will appeal his conviction on two counts of corruptly influencing, obstructing and impeding the due administration of justice and one count of making a false statement in a motion in which he claimed to be an attorney. On Oct. 19, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District in Laredo returned a guilty verdict against Richardson. As noted on the verdict form, the jury convicted Richardson on the charges for obstruction of due administration of justice for his appearances representing a client before U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker on June 4 and June 29. The jury convicted Richardson of the charge of making false statements for filing a motion for admission pro hac vice with the court, according to the verdict form. In the Aug. 31 indictment in United States v. Richardson, the government alleged that Richardson falsely represented himself as an attorney in United States v. Reyes. A superseding criminal complaint filed July 12 alleges the following: Richardson represented himself as an attorney for a man in an immigration case. In connection with his motion for pro hac vice admission, Richardson submitted documents to show he was in good standing with the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Cherokee Nation Bar Association . Authorities subsequently determined that Richardson was never a member of the Massachusetts Bar and that his membership in the Cherokee Nation Bar was obtained by using a California Bar admission number belonging to someone else. According to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, U.S. District Judge Micaela Alvarez ordered Richardson detained without bond pending his sentencing hearing on Jan. 13, 2011. But Almaraz questions how the jury found Richardson “corruptly” did the things for which he was convicted. “In my estimation, no corrupting motive was ever attributed to my client,” Almaraz says. He says Richardson was trying to help an undocumented worker by asking that the case be dismissed. “What corruption occurred in asking somebody to do the right thing?” Almaraz asks. He says Richardson also insists that he is a tribal lawyer and a member of the Cherokee Nation Bar.
Bad News for Kent
Former U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent’s effort to get his 33-month sentence vacated, set aside or corrected isn’t looking good. On Oct. 20, U.S. Magistrate Judge Miles Davis of the Northern District of Florida signed a report and recommendation saying, “After a careful review of the record and the argument presented, it is the opinion of the undersigned that defendant has not raised any issue requiring an evidentiary hearing . . . and that the motion should be denied,” In a 17-page report, Davis also found that in the event of an appeal, a certificate of appealability should be denied. In a motion filed on Aug. 2, Kent alleged his sentence should be reviewed on three grounds: The U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) ignored the sentencing judge’s intent by denying Kent admission to the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP); he was subjected to “conditions tantamount to psychological and physical torture” since he began serving his sentence in June 2009; and his sentence violated due process. But in a Sept. 15 opposition motion in United States v. Samuel B. Kent, the government urged U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida to deny Kent’s motion. “The motion lacks even the barest factual support, and all but one of the motion’s claims are procedurally barred, because they must be brought in a civil rights lawsuit, not a petition,” the government alleged. Sean Buckley , a lawyer at DeGuerin & Dickson in Houston who represents Kent, says Kent’s lawyers are deciding what to do in the wake of Davis’ report and recommendation. “Judge Kent is not being subjected to these abusive conditions currently, so we have no immediate complaint,” he says. However, Buckley says they remain concerned about the “substantive difference” between Vinson’s intent when sentencing Kent and how the former Galveston federal judge has been treated by the BOP. Peter Ainsworth , a U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor in Washington, D.C., who prosecuted Kent, did not return a telephone call seeking comment. On May 11, 2009, Vinson, sitting by assignment in Houston, sentenced Kent to 33 months in prison. Kent had pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice as part of a plea deal. Kent is scheduled for release from prison in November 2011, according to the BOP website.
