US v. Lady Locotin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00397-LMB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998951457].. [12-4145]

Appeal: 12-4145

Doc: 47

Filed: 10/03/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LADY JACQUELINE LOCOTIN, a/k/a Lady Jacqueline Asante, a/k/a
Jacqueline Locotin, a/k/a Jacqueline Lady Locotin, a/k/a
Jacqueline Asante, a/k/a Jacqueline Lady Asante Locotin,
a/k/a Elizabeth Akoye Kocou, a/k/a Angela Folson, a/k/a
Joyce Amene Obese,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00397-LMB-1)

Submitted:

September 25, 2012

Decided:

October 3, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John O. Iweanoge, II, THE IWEANOGES’ FIRM, P.C., Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney,
Ronald L. Walutes, Jr., Michael J. Frank, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4145

Doc: 47

Filed: 10/03/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Lady Jacqueline Locotin of
unlawful procurement of citizenship, immigration document fraud,
and misuse of a social security number, and the district court
imposed

an

challenging

eighteen-month
the

sentence.

sufficiency

of

reasonableness of her sentence.
Locotin
evidence
court’s

to

first

support

decision

to

acquittal de novo.
(4th Cir. 2010).
whether

there

convictions.

the

that

convictions.

deny

a

now

evidence

appeals,
and

the

Finding no error, we affirm.

argues

her

Locotin

Fed.

R.

there

is

We

review

a

P.

motion

Crim.

insufficient

29

district
for

United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 762
In evaluating sufficiency claims, we consider

is

substantial

evidence

to

support

the

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence is that which a

reasonable fact finder could accept as adequate and sufficient
to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id.

A defendant bringing a sufficiency claim bears a “heavy burden,”
which is met only in “the rare case where the prosecution’s
failure is clear.”
(4th

Cir.

2010)

United States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138
(citations

and

internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
In order to prove each of the charges against Locotin,
the Government needed to show that she acted knowingly.
2

To

Appeal: 12-4145

Doc: 47

Filed: 10/03/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

prove her guilty knowledge, the Government presented evidence of
Locotin’s

numerous

misrepresentations

and

omissions

in

applications for citizenship, a passport, and a social security
number.
the

We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to uphold

verdict

and

therefore

that

the

district

court

properly

denied Locotin’s Rule 29 motion.
Locotin
sentence.

next

challenges

the

reasonableness

of

her

This court reviews a sentence applying an abuse of

discretion standard.
(2007).

The

court

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46
first

reviews

for

significant

procedural

errors, including whether the district court failed to consider
the § 3553(a) factors.
finds

a

sentence

substantive

procedurally

reasonableness,

circumstances test.
is

within

Gall, 552 U.S. at 46.

the

Id.

reasonable,
applying

a

it

If the court
then

totality

considers
of

the

Finally, where, as here, the sentence

Guidelines

presumption of reasonableness.

range,

the

court

may

apply

a

Id.

Locotin presents no evidence to rebut the presumption
of reasonableness.

Her claim that the district court improperly

applied the § 3553(a) factors is contradicted by the record, her
disparity claim is unsubstantiated, and her claim of entitlement
to a downward departure is unreviewable.

See United States v.

Carr, 271 F.3d 172, 176 (4th Cir. 2001).

We therefore conclude

3

Appeal: 12-4145

Doc: 47

Filed: 10/03/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Locotin’s sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4