United States v. Nassau Lucas , 676 F. App'x 177 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. On
appeal, Lucas contends that the district court 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. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). 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 sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected
sentence. 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
should address the party’s arguments and explain why he has
rejected those arguments.” United States v. Bollinger, 798 F.3d
2
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
did not find Lucas’ argument persuasive, it recognized its
discretion to vary downward from the Guidelines range in light
of the § 3553(a) factors. The court clarified with Lucas that
he was not raising a sentencing entrapment or sentencing
manipulation claim, and that his argument was centered on his
culpability under the § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, when the
Government attempted to raise arguments concerning sentencing
entrapment or sentencing manipulation, the 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
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4