Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02765/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02765-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Robert Allen Walters
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2765

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Robert Allen Walters, also known as *

Michael Genovese, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Robert Genovese, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2007

Filed: October 1, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Allen Walters appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after

he pleaded guilty to mailing a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 876(c). He argues the district court erred in applying an enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(2) upon determining that the offense involved more than two

Appellate Case: 06-2765 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2007 Entry ID: 3357244
-2-

threats. Specifically, he challenges the district court’s finding that the letters in

question were objectively threatening.

We review the district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo and its

factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Amsden, 213 F.3d 1014, 1015

(8th Cir. 2000). We agree with the district court’s application of section 2A6.1(b)(2),

because the letters were substantially and directly related to the offense conduct. See

U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1, comment. (n.1) (in determining whether enhancement should apply,

court should consider conduct that is “substantially and directly connected to the

offense, under the facts of the case taken as a whole”). We also conclude that the

court did not clearly err in finding the letters objectively threatening, because we

believe that unambiguous language in the letters would lead any reasonable person

familiar with the context to perceive the letters as threatening. See United States v.

Bellrichard, 994 F.2d 1318, 1323-24 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard is whether “a

reasonable recipient, familiar with the context of the communication, would interpret

it as a threat”; communications must be viewed both in “textual context and also in

the context of the totality of the circumstances in which the communication was

made”).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2765 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2007 Entry ID: 3357244