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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000020513]. [16-4207]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4207 Doc: 40 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4207 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NASSAU LUCAS, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?