US v. Lady Locotin, No. 12-4145 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4145 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LADY JACQUELINE LOCOTIN, a/k/a Lady Jacqueline Asante, a/k/a Jacqueline Locotin, a/k/a Jacqueline Lady Locotin, a/k/a Jacqueline Asante, a/k/a Jacqueline Lady Asante Locotin, a/k/a Elizabeth Akoye Kocou, a/k/a Angela Folson, a/k/a Joyce Amene Obese, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00397-LMB-1) Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: October 3, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John O. Iweanoge, II, THE IWEANOGES FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Ronald L. Walutes, Jr., Michael J. Frank, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A federal jury convicted Lady Jacqueline Locotin of unlawful procurement of citizenship, immigration document fraud, and misuse of a social security number, and the district court imposed an challenging eighteen-month the sentence. sufficiency of reasonableness of her sentence. Locotin evidence court s to first support decision to acquittal de novo. (4th Cir. 2010). whether there convictions. the that convictions. deny a now evidence appeals, and the Finding no error, we affirm. argues her Locotin Fed. R. there is We review a P. motion Crim. insufficient 29 district for United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 762 In evaluating sufficiency claims, we consider is substantial evidence to support the United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable fact finder could accept as adequate and sufficient to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A defendant bringing a sufficiency claim bears a heavy burden, which is met only in the rare case where the prosecution s failure is clear. (4th Cir. 2010) United States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In order to prove each of the charges against Locotin, the Government needed to show that she acted knowingly. 2 To prove her guilty knowledge, the Government presented evidence of Locotin s numerous misrepresentations and omissions in applications for citizenship, a passport, and a social security number. the We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to uphold verdict and therefore that the district court properly denied Locotin s Rule 29 motion. Locotin sentence. next challenges the reasonableness of her This court reviews a sentence applying an abuse of discretion standard. (2007). The court Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 first reviews for significant procedural errors, including whether the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors. finds a sentence substantive procedurally reasonableness, circumstances test. is within Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. the Id. reasonable, applying a it If the court then totality considers of the Finally, where, as here, the sentence Guidelines presumption of reasonableness. range, the court may apply a Id. Locotin presents no evidence to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. Her claim that the district court improperly applied the § 3553(a) factors is contradicted by the record, her disparity claim is unsubstantiated, and her claim of entitlement to a downward departure is unreviewable. See United States v. Carr, 271 F.3d 172, 176 (4th Cir. 2001). We therefore conclude 3 that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Locotin s sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
