United States v. Locke
398 U.S. App. D.C. 368
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Locke participated in a January 2007 to April 2008 conspiracy to possess stolen mail and cash forged checks in the DC area.
- The fifteen-month scheme caused actual losses over $120,000 with intended losses over $340,000.
- She pled guilty to one count of possession of stolen mail and one count of aggravated identity theft; other counts were dismissed.
- The government reserved a four-level leadership enhancement; with other adjustments, Guidelines range became 57–71 months, consecutive to a 24-month ID theft minimum.
- Locke sought a below-Guidelines sentence based on cooperation and loss calculation; the government urged 60 months total.
- The district court sentenced Locke to 60 months total (36 on stolen mail, 24 consecutive on identity theft) after explaining its reasoning under 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court adequately considered cooperation argument | Locke | Locke | No error; court gave a reasoned basis and considered the argument |
| Whether using intended loss over actual loss overstated the offense | Locke | Locke | Court acknowledged but rejected as a basis to depart from the sentence |
| Whether the sentence is reasonable under 3553(a) after Booker | Locke | Locke | Sentence affirmed as reasonable; district court satisfied 3553(a) and Rita standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (requires reasoned basis for sentence; nonfrivolous arguments considered)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (sentencing scope after Booker; reasonableness review framework)
- In re Sealed Case, 527 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (district courts need not discuss every factor but must provide reasoned basis)
- United States v. Akhigbe, 642 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (two-step reasonableness review; standard for preserving sentencing issues)
- United States v. Wilson, 605 F.3d 985 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (overall reasonableness under 3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (plain error review in sentencing challenges when no objection raised)
- United States v. Ayers, 428 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (presumption of considering §3553(a) factors; not every factor must be listed)