Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10031/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10031-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Linda Gail Horton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10031

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

LINDA GAIL HORTON,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-220-1

Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Linda Gail Horton pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to one count

of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Horton challenges a twopoint enhancement to her base-offense level under Guideline § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) 

for making a threat of death during the commission of the robbery. Along that 

line, Horton asserts the enhancement applies only if “(1) a reasonable person 

in the position of the immediate victim would very likely believe the defendant 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10031 Document: 00513798452 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
No. 16-10031

2

made a threat and the threat was to kill, and (2) the victim likely thought his 

life was in peril”. U.S.S.G app. C, amend. 552. Because the presentence 

investigation report did not mention whether the victim experienced a fear of 

death, Horton claims the court erred in imposing the enhancement.

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the 

district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly 

calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 48–51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved 

objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in 

district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual 

findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 

F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Horton did not object in district court to the application of the threat-ofdeath enhancement. The absence of a “threat of death” was urged only in 

seeking a downward departure. Therefore, review is only for plain error. E.g.,

United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that 

standard, Horton must show a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that 

affected her substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). If she does so, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain

error, but should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or 

public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.

The commentary for Guideline § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) explains a threat of death 

“may be in the form of an oral or written statement, act, gesture, or 

combination thereof”. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1, cmt. n.6. The defendant need not 

expressly threaten to kill the victim. Id. Instead, under the applicable 

 Case: 16-10031 Document: 00513798452 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
No. 16-10031

3

objective standard, the enhancement applies when a reasonable person would 

reasonably fear his life was in danger. United States v. Soto-Martinez, 317 

F.3d 477, 479 (5th Cir. 2003). Horton’s note to the bank teller demanded 

money and stated Horton had a bomb. It is not clear or obvious error to decide 

such a statement would instill a fear of death in a reasonable person, especially 

in a tense and stressful situation like a bank robbery. See id.

Therefore, Horton fails to show the court plainly erred in applying the 

“threat of death” enhancement. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Soto-Martinez, 

317 F.3d at 479. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10031 Document: 00513798452 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/15/2016