United States of America v. Alice Felder-Lucas

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 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 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 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

-- 3 of 3 --