US v. Nassau Luca
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00077-REP-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-4207]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
January 31, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
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.
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.
Finding no error, we affirm.
38, 41 (2007).
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for
both procedural and substantive reasonableness.
Id. at 51.
determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for
Id. at 49-51.
“Where the defendant or prosecutor
presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence
than that set forth in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge
rejected those arguments.”
United States v. Bollinger, 798 F.3d
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.
While the district court
discretion to vary downward from the Guidelines range in light
of the § 3553(a) factors.
The court clarified with Lucas that
manipulation claim, and that his argument was centered on his
culpability under the § 3553(a) factors.
Moreover, when the
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
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.
Pg: 4 of 4
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?