Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01245/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James W. Hollowell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Uoited Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES W. HOLLOWELL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

MAY 2 4 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1245 

(D.C. No. 89-CR-118) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before*fACHA and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, District 

Judge. 

The defendant appeals his conviction of knowingly and 

willfully making a threat to take the life of the President of the 

United States, 18 U.S.C. § 87l(a), and his sentence imposed under 

the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, 

U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1-4B1.3. Defendant argues that the district court 

erred by refusing to grant a continuance to allow defendant 

further time to prepare for trial and by applying the career 

offender provisions when his prior convictions were not in fact 

crimes of violence. Defendant further alleges that the evidence 

was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable Edward Dumbauld, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting 

by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-1245 Document: 01019970511 Date Filed: 05/24/1990 Page: 1 
• Defendant twice in the same evening threatened to take the 

life of the President of the United States during two telephone 

calls to a Secret Service Agent. When the Secret Service Agent 

arrived at a Denver homeless shelter from which defendant had 

placed the first telephone call to speak with the defendant in 

person, the defendant again repeated his threat. Defendant also 

handed the Secret Service Agent a piece of paper containing a 

written threat to take the life of the President. At the time 

that defense counsel was appointed to represent defendant, 

defendant insisted that he wished to plead guilty. Defendant 

later changed his mind and pled not guilty. The trial was held 

approximately eleven days after the change of plea hearing. 

Defense counsel sought a continuance on the grounds that he needed 

additional time to collect psychiatric records and to gather 

evidence with respect to prior incidents in which defendant was 

allegedly involved in threats against the President. The trial 

court denied the motion for continuance. The defense presented no 

evidence at all at trial alleging that it was impossible to gather 

the appropriate evidence in such a short time. In sentencing the 

defendant the trial court applied the career offender provisions 

of the Sentencing Guidelines and enhanced the sentence because 

defendant had previously been convicted twice for threatening the 

President. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

the request for a continuance. The record is clear that the 

district court considered the evidence sought by defense counsel 

and found that the doubtful relevance and admissibility of the 

evidence was insufficient to support the request for the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1245 Document: 01019970511 Date Filed: 05/24/1990 Page: 2 
/ 

• 

continuance. Further, defendant was represented by an attorney 

from the date the complaint was filed on April 10, 1989. The 

trial was held on June 12 and 13, 1989. Regardless of the 

intervention of the change of plea, the defense had adequate time 

to prepare for the trial. We cannot say that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying the continuance or that the 

defendant's conviction was based on insufficient evidence. The 

record clearly contains sufficient evidence to support the jury 

verdict. 

The district judge did not err in applying the career 

offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. Guidelines 

section 4B1.1 provides that a defendant is a career offender if 

(1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time of 

the instant offense; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a 

felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled 

substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior 

felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled 

substance offense. A "crime of violence" is a term of art under 

the Guidelines. Guidelines section 4B1.2.(l)(i) defines a crime 

of violence as any offense under federal or state law punishable 

by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year that "has as an 

element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical 

force against the person of another." (emphasis added.) Thus, a 

"crime of violence'' is not limited to crimes where the defendant 

has in fact used violence; the mere threatened use of physical 

force is sufficient. Defendant's two prior convictions and now 

his third offense under 18 U.S.C. § 87l(a) fall squarely within 

§ 4B1.2.(l)(i) 's definition of a crime of violence. Section 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1245 Document: 01019970511 Date Filed: 05/24/1990 Page: 3 
• 87l(a) states as an element of the offense "any threat to take the 

life of ... or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the 

United States." 

Defendant also argues that the circumstances of his 

convictions constitute a ground for departure. We cannot 

entertain this argument because we have no appellate jurisdiction 

to review a trial court's refusal to depart from the Guidelines. 

See United States v. Davis, No. 89-1086 (10th Cir. April 16, 

1990). 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1245 Document: 01019970511 Date Filed: 05/24/1990 Page: 4