US v. Nassau Luca

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00077-REP-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000020513]. [16-4207]

Appeal: 16-4207

Doc: 40

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NASSAU LUCAS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00077-REP-1)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

February 9, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew M. Stewart, DENNIS, STEWART, KRISCHER, & TERPAK, PLLC,
Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, Benjamin R. Farley, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4207

Doc: 40

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Nassau Lucas on two counts of being a
felon in possession of a firearm.

The district court sentenced

Lucas to an aggregate sentence of 140 months’ imprisonment.
appeal,

Lucas

contends

that

the

district

court

On

procedurally

erred by considering Lucas’ motion for a downward variance as a
motion for a downward departure from his advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range and further erred by failing to meaningfully
consider his argument.
We

review

a

Finding no error, we affirm.

defendant’s

abuse-of-discretion standard.”
38, 41 (2007).

sentence

“under

a

deferential

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for

both procedural and substantive reasonableness.

Id. at 51.

In

determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
district

court

properly

calculated

the

defendant’s

advisory

Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for
an

appropriate

(2012)

sentence,

factors,

sentence.

and

considered

sufficiently

Id. at 49-51.

the

18

U.S.C.

explained

§

the

3553(a)
selected

“Where the defendant or prosecutor

presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence
than that set forth in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge
should

address

the

party’s

rejected those arguments.”

arguments

and

explain

why

he

has

United States v. Bollinger, 798 F.3d

2

Appeal: 16-4207

Doc: 40

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

201, 220 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2448 (2016).
We discern no procedural error.
did

not

find

Lucas’

argument

While the district court

persuasive,

it

recognized

its

discretion to vary downward from the Guidelines range in light
of the § 3553(a) factors.
he

was

not

raising

a

The court clarified with Lucas that
sentencing

entrapment

or

sentencing

manipulation claim, and that his argument was centered on his
culpability under the § 3553(a) factors.
Government
entrapment

attempted
or

to

raise

sentencing

arguments

Moreover, when the
concerning

manipulation,

the

sentencing

district

court

corrected the Government several times, reiterating that Lucas’
argument was based on the § 3553(a) factors.
The district court also offered a sufficient explanation
for its rejection of Lucas’ argument.

The court stated that

Lucas’ argument failed in light of the facts of the case — Lucas
contacted a confidential informant to sell a pistol, and while
an undercover officer contacted Lucas to purchase a firearm that
Lucas did not have, Lucas immediately informed the officer that
he had other weapons for sale, and that he would have more to
sell

in

the

near

future.

Furthermore,

the

district

court

explained that a within-Guidelines sentence was appropriate in
light of Lucas’ lengthy criminal history and the danger to the
public caused by the illegal sale of firearms.
3

Appeal: 16-4207

Doc: 40

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4