Court Opinion

ID: 9930204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 16:02:12.34059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:11:17.791010
License: Public Domain

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                                 [Unpublished]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.
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
                                         -2-
      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.
                      ______________________________

                                         -3-