UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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.
4

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