Court Opinion

ID: 9405645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:51.451597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.115451
License: Public Domain

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

                                            UNPUBLISHED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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 2 of 3

        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 non-

        frivolous 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).

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

                                                      3