United States v. Lady Locotin

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 eighteen-month sentence. Locotin now appeals,
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the
reasonableness of her sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Locotin first argues that there is insufficient
evidence to support her convictions. We review a district
court’s decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for
acquittal de novo. United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 762
(4th Cir. 2010). In evaluating sufficiency claims, we consider
whether there is substantial evidence to support the
convictions. 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.” United States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138
(4th Cir. 2010) (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. To
2
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. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to uphold
the verdict and therefore that the district court properly
denied Locotin’s Rule 29 motion.
Locotin next challenges the reasonableness of her
sentence. This court reviews a sentence applying an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46
(2007). The court first reviews for significant procedural
errors, including whether the district court failed to consider
the § 3553(a) factors. Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. If the court
finds a sentence procedurally reasonable, it then considers
substantive reasonableness, applying a totality of the
circumstances test. Id. Finally, where, as here, the sentence
is within the Guidelines range, the court may apply a
presumption of reasonableness. 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
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