United States of America v. Lucas Frank Floyd

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[Unpublished]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.

-- 1 of 3 --

-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

-- 2 of 3 --

-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.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --