United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2090

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lucas Frank Floyd

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ 

Submitted: January 8, 2024

Filed: February 6, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Lucas Frank Floyd pled guilty to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by 

robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The district court1 sentenced him to 

1

The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Court Judge for the 

Northern District of Iowa.
-2- 

180 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He appeals his sentence. 

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Floyd challenges the substantive reasonableness of his above-guidelines

sentence (range was 92 to 115 months). This court reviews for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Thigpen, 848 F.3d 841, 847 (8th Cir. 2017). “[I]t will be the unusual 

case when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above, or below the 

applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.” United States v. 

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 

Floyd believes the district court failed to adequately weigh the mitigating 

factors, specifically his “difficult childhood and its extraordinary impact on his adult 

life.” But the court discussed this:

The defendant’s childhood was difficult. His parents were divorced 

when he was 3 years of age. His father has a history of substance abuse 

and was not around. His mother has a criminal history and some mental 

health struggles herself. And the defendant—the defendant’s mother, 

in fact, described the defendant’s childhood as a nightmare, noting he 

was not—she was not the best mother. The defendant was apparently 

in and out of some foster care as well.

Still, the court varied upward based on his offense conduct (armed robbery/home 

invasion); other criminal conduct (firearm and drug possession); criminal history 

(theft, a sex offense); substance abuse issues; a “huge number” of probation 

violations and “the worst series of violations I think I’ve seen somebody commit 

while incarcerated.” The court concluded:

This defendant is out of control. He is violent. I don’t know if this is 

his way of getting back at society for what he feels has been a raw deal 

that he’s received, but whatever his thinking is, it’s got to be corrected.

And he’s going to have to correct it. But in the meantime, I have to 

consider the goals of sentencing, which include in part imposing a 

sentence sufficiently severe to protect the community. And this 

defendant is now on his third armed robbery, the—I’m sorry, second
-3- 

armed robbery. He is violent. He endangered the lives of multiple 

people. And he simply is a walking danger to the community at this 

point.

The court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. It did not abuse its 

discretion. See United States v. Wilcox, 666 F.3d 1154, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012) (“The

district court’s choice to assign relatively greater weight to the nature and 

circumstances of the offense than to the mitigating personal characteristics of the 

defendant is well within the wide latitude given to individual district court judges in 

weighing relevant factors.” (cleaned up)).

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________