UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4393

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALICE FELDER-LUCAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00088-MGL-1)

Submitted: January 19, 2023 Decided: June 27, 2023

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. 

Boroughs, United States Attorney, T. DeWayne Pearson, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4393 Doc: 18 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Alice Felder-Lucas appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following her 

convictions for making false claims against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 287, and theft of government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. On appeal, 

Felder-Lucas argues that her within-Guidelines-range sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court did not address or explain its rejection of one of her 

mitigating arguments at sentencing. 

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard.” United States v. Lewis, 18 F.4th 743, 748 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). First, we must determine whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable, 

which includes ensuring that the district court “address[ed] or consider[ed] all nonfrivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence” and explained its rejection 

of those arguments. See United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). As long as the district court addresses the “central thesis” of the 

defendant’s arguments, an exhaustive explanation is not required. United States v. Powers, 

40 F.4th 129, 137 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, an 

insufficient explanation for a chosen sentence can be harmless where the Government 

“demonstrates that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on 

the result and we can say with fair assurance that the district court’s explicit consideration 

of the defendant’s arguments would not have affected the sentence imposed.” United 

States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4393 Doc: 18 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Felder-Lucas argues that the district court erred by failing to specifically address her 

argument that the court should impose a downward-variant sentence because she was the 

primary caregiver for her father. That is not, however, the argument that Felder-Lucas 

presented at sentencing. Rather, Felder-Lucas stated at that time, without additional 

explanation or evidence, that she wished to “spend some time” with her father because he 

was “ill” and “in hospice.” In the context of this case, we conclude that the district court 

did not reversibly err by not directly addressing or explaining its rejection of this argument. 

We therefore 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4393 Doc: 18 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3