Case ID: f-appx_286/html/0180-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph Arthur BOLTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10865
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 16, 2008.
    
      Alan M. Buie, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Ronald Gordon Couch, Colleyville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Room 9al0, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Joseph Arthur Bolton appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for making threats against the President of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871. He argues that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(l).

We review the procedural soundness and substantive reasonableness of Bolton’s sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court’s determination that, pursuant to § 2A6.1(b)(l), Bolton’s conduct evidenced an intent to carry out his threats is a factual finding and must be reviewed for clear error. United States v. Goynes, 175 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir.1999).

Because Bolton solicited another person to assassinate the President and because he attempted to travel to the President’s ranch for reconnaissance purposes, the district court did not clearly err in applying the § 2A6.1(b)(l) enhancement. See Goynes, 175 F.3d at 355. In addition, Bolton points to nothing in the Guidelines that precludes application of the § 2A6.1 enhancement if the defendant could not have ultimately carried out his threat. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in applying the § 2A6.1(b)(l) enhancement. Moreover, because the district court imposed a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597; Rita v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Bolton’s sentence is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.