T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 18, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

__________________________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. W I LLI AM M I TCH ELL CHA PP LE, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 7015 ( D . Ct . N o. 04 - CR - 10 6- 01 - P) (E .D . O k la .)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, and BARRETT and BROR BY , Seni or C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

A p p e llan t W ill iam M itch e ll C h a p p le w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryo f tw o c o u n ts-2-

o f ma i l i n g a t h r e a t e n i n g c o mm u n i c a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 8 7 6 ( c ) . He now appea l s hi s concurr entt hi r t y - thr ee- m onth s ent ence s , ar gui ng i m pos i t i on of a var i ance s i x m ont hs hi ghert han the advi s or yU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes (“ G u id e lin e s” o r “ U .S .S .G .”) r a n g e o f tw e n ty -o n e to tw e n ty -se v e n m o n th s is s u b s t a n t i v e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e u n d e rth e 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s . We exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and affirm M r. C hap ple’ s concu rr ent s entences.

I . Factual and Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound T he r el evantfac t s ar e pr i m ar i l yout l i ned i n thi s court ’ s pr evi ous deci s i on i nvol vi ng M r . C happl e’ s i ni t i al appea l of hi s thi r ty - thr ee- m onth s ent ence , w hi ch, to g e th e r w ith th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l, w e s u m m a ri z e a s fo llo w s . See Uni t ed Stat es v . C h a p p le , 1 9 8 F e d . A p p x . 7 4 5 (1 0 th C ir . O c t. 6 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d o p .). B e tw e e n O c to b e r 1 a n d O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4 , tw o m a n ila e n v e lo p e s c o n tain in g a w h ite po w derysubst ance w ere m ai l ed from tw o d i fferentst at es t o the sam e bu si ness lo c a te d in M u s k o g e e , O k la h o m a . Id. at74 7. A n em ploy ee w ho han dled the fir st envel ope, pos t m arked fr om C ol or ado Spr i ngs , C ol or ado, not i ced i tw as l eaki ng a pow derand s um m oned the pos t al carr i er , w ho, atthe s ugges t i on of the U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce, cont act ed the M us kogee Pol i ce D epart m ent , w hi ch, i n tur n, s e n tp o l i c e o ffi c e r s t o c o l l e c tt h e e n v e l o p e a n d s u b mi ti tt o th e Ok l a h o ma D e p a rt m e n t o f

H e a lth la b o ra to ry fo r a n a lysis . Id.-3-

A few day s l at er , empl oy ees atthe M us kogee Pos tO ffi ce i nt er cept ed the s econd mani l a enve l ope, w hi ch w as m ai l ed fr om Syr acus e, K ans as , and addr es s ed to th e s a m e b u s in e s s . Id. B eca us e the pos t al empl oy ees bel i eved the enve l ope c o n t a i n e d a n u n k n o wn s u b s t a n c e , a p o s t a l i n s p e c t o rtr a n s p o r t e d i tt o th e s a me O k la h o m a la b fo r a n a lysis . Id. U l t i m at el y , the l ab det erm i ned both envel opes c o n ta in e d n o n -b io h a z a rd o u s p o w d e rs . Id.

T he pos t al i ns pect ori nves t i gat i ng the mat t eri nt ervi ew ed the ow nerof the bus i nes s , C hr i s t i ne C annar s a, w ho bel i eved the s enderw as M r . C happl e, a form er c l a s s ma t e wh o h a d b e e n s t a l k i n g h e rfo ra p p r o x i ma t e l ye i g h t e e n mo n th s t o two y e a rs in a n a tte m p t to e s ta b lis h a ro m a n tic re la tio n s h ip w ith h e r. Id. She advi s ed s he pr evi ous l yfi l ed r eport s w i t h t he M us kogee Pol i ce D epart m entand hi r ed an at t orney , w ho adv i sed M r. C hap ple t o st op sending co m m un i cat i on s t o M s. C a n n a rs a . Id. W h e n th e in sp e c to r in ter v iew e d M r. C h a p p le, h e c o n fe ss e d to s e n d i n g t h e e n v e l o p e s a n d e x p l a i n e d h e i n t e n d e d th e p o wd e r , o b t a i n e d f r o m a b ro k e n ro a d fla re , to s c a re M s . C a n n a rs a . Id.

Fol l ow i ng hi s arr es t , M r . C happl e w as convi ct ed bya j ur yof tw o count s of m a ilin g a th re a te n in g c o m m u n ic a tio n in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 7 6 (c ). Id. T he pr obat i on offi cerpr epar i ng t he pr es ent ence r eporti nt ervi ew ed M s . C annar s a and the e m p loy ee w h o h an d led th e fir st en v elop e. M s. C an n arsa d esc ri b ed M r.B e c a u se M r. C h a p p le d o e s n o t cla im th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in 1 con si deri ng t he p sy cho l og i cal and otherneg at i ve im pacts t he m ai l i ng s had o n M s. C a n n a rsa fo r th e p u rp o se o f im p o sin g a v a ria n c e u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ), w e d e c lin e to o u tlin e th e m h e re , o th e r t h a n to n o te th e yw e re s u b s ta n tia l a n d c o n tin u in g . -4- C happl e’ s cont actt ow ar d herforthe pr i orei ght een mont hs , w hi ch i ncl uded corr espon den ce he sen ther that coul d b e charact eri zed as l ov e l et t ers and po em s; how ever , one part i cul arl et t erm ade a tr oubl i ng s t at ementi ndi cat i ng thatevery one he had l oved w as now dead, w hi ch gr eat l ybother ed her . M s . C annar s a expl ai ned t hatw hi l e s he w as i ni t i al l yafr ai d of M r . C happl e, s he bec ame t err i fi ed af t erthe fi r s ts us pectenvel ope arr i ved, and s he out l i ned i n gr eatdet ai l the nega t i ve i m pact s on herl i fe c aus ed byhi s m ai l i ngs and havi ng t o t es t i fyagai ns thi m at t r i al , as w el l as t he var i ous s afe t yand otherm eas ur es s he had t aken – a l l of w hi ch a ffe c t e d h e rp e r s o n a l l y a n d p r o fe s s i o n a l l y. 1

M s. C a n n a rsa ’s e m p lo y e e to ld th e p ro b a tio n o ffice r sh e w a s e x tre m e ly fearful for her heal t h u nti l i den t i fi cat i on of the env el op e’s con t ents . S he als o det ai l ed the effec tM r . C happl e’ s act i ons had on herw i th r es pectt o herfea r s for her personal safet yand po ssi ble r et ri bu t i on againsther aft er s he tes t i fi ed ag ai nst h im . I n pr epar i ng t he pr es ent ence r eport , t he pr obat i on offi cercal cul at ed the G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange a nd r ecomm ended i ncr eas i ng the bas e l evel of tw el veT he pr obat i on offi cerr ecomm ended thi s i ncr eas e af t erdet erm i ni ng the 2 offe ns e l evel form ai l i ng a thr eat eni ng comm uni cat i on w as t w el ve, concl udi ng t he t wo ma i l i n g s s h o u l d b e g r o u p e d s e p a r a t e l y , a n d t h e n r e l y i n g o n U. S . S . G. § 3D 1. 4( a) t o appl ya tw o- l evel upw ar d adj us t m ent , fora combi ned offens e l evel o f fo u rt e e n . S e e C h ap

p le , 1 9 8 F e d . A p p x . a t 7 4 7 -4 8 .

-5- w i t h a t w o- l evel enhanc ement under U . S. S. G . § 3D 1. 4( a) . T hus , t he pr es ent ence 2 re p o rt a ss ig n e d M r. C h a p p le a to tal o ffe n se lev e l o f fo u rte e n , w h ich , tog e th e r w ith h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f I V , r e s u l t e d i n a G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f t w e n tys e v e n to th ir ty-th re e m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. Id. a t 7 4 7 -4 8 . W h ile M r. C h a p p le obj ect ed to cert ai n d at es provi ded i n the present ence repo rt , he d i d n ot otherw i se o bject t o the fac ts prese n ted, i n clud ing tho se re g ard ing h is prior co n d u ct t o w ard M s . C a n n a rs a o r t h e e ffe c t o f th e in s ta n t m a ilin g s o n h e r o r h e r e m p lo y e e . Fol l ow i ng a s ent enci ng hear i ng, the di s tr i ctcourti m pos ed a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent o f th ir ty-th re e m o n th s fo r e a c h c o u n t, to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly. Id. a t 7 4 8 . O n ap p ea l, this co u rtrem an d ed w ith instruction s to v ac ate M r. C h ap p le’s se n ten c e a n d re se n ten c e h im , af ter d e ter m in in g th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rly a p p lie d th e tw o -l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n t. Id. at 75 1 . W e rejected the g o v ern m en t’ s a rg u m e n t th a t tw o d ire c t v ictim s e x iste d fo r th e p u rp o se o f c o n sid e rin g th e c o u n ts s epar at el yforappl i cat i on of the § 3D 1. 4( a) enhanc ement ; i ns t ead, w e i dent i fi ed M s . C annar s a as t he i nt ended r eci pi entand di r ectvi ct i m and det erm i ned her empl oy ee w as an i ndi r ectors econda ryvi ct i m w ho coul d notbe cons i der ed under th e c o n te s te d G u id e lin e , § 3 D 1 .2 . Id. at750- 51.-6-

F o llo w in g o u r re m a n d , the d istric t co u rt p ro v id e d n o tice to th e p a rties it w as cons i der i ng i m pos i ng a var i ance above the amended advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of t w enty - one t o t w enty - s even mont hs i m pr i s onm ent . I texpl ai ned a var i ance w as nece s s aryi n l i ghtof the s er i ous natur e of the cr i m e and the ps y chol ogi cal t r auma t o t he di r ectand i ndi r ectvi ct i m s , and i n l i ghtof the curr ent at m osph ere of height ened vigi l ance p l aci ng al l ci t i zens on no t i ce of t err ori st act i vi t y . M r . C happl e cont es t ed the pr opos ed var i ance , aft erw hi ch the g o v e rn m e n t file d a re s p o n s e in s u p p o rt o f a v a ri a n c e . A ta s ent enci ng hear i ng hel d February12, 2007, and af t eral l ow i ng the par t i es an oppor tuni t yt o pr es entar gum ent , the di s tr i ctcour ti m pos ed a s ent ence of thi r t y - t hr ee mont hs on eac h count , t o run concurr ent l y . I n “form ul at i ng the sen tenc e im p o sed , ” itex p lai n ed ith ad co n side red the a m en d ed ad v isory G ui del i nes cal cul at i ons t ogetherw i th the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the ca s e, i ncludi ng t he fa ctM r. C hap ple had ex t ensi velyst al ked and t err ori zed M s. Ca n n a r s a , c u l mi n a t i n g i n t h e ma i l i n g o f two e n v e l o p e s c o n t a i n i n g a n u n k n o wn pow derr es embl i ng a bi ohaza r dous s ubs t ance m eantt o i ns t i l l fea rand t err ori n t he m i nd of the r eci pi ent . I tal s o not ed the G ui del i nes fai l ed t o cons i derthe i m pact of M r . C happl e’ s act i ons on t he i ndi r ectvi ct i m s , i ncl udi ng the empl oy ee w ho r ece i ved the i ni t i al envel ope, t he pos t al w or kerw ho del i ver ed thatenvel ope, the l aw enfor cementoffi cer s w ho r es ponded, and the l ab t echni ci ans , eac h of w hom-7-

w entt hr ough a per i od of unknow i ng and l i kel yps y chol ogi cal angui s h aft er cont actw i t h t he s ubs t ance unt i l fi ndi ng outi tw as notharm ful . I tal s o poi nt ed outM r . C happl e t ook “adva nt age of a poi nti n t i m e thatthe ci t i zens of thi s nat i on w e re a lre a d yf

u n c tio n in g o n a h e ig h ten e d fe a r o f ter ro rist a c tiv ity .” F in a lly , it not ed i tcons i der ed the s ent enci ng fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and conc l uded t he s ent ence r efl ect ed the s er i ous nes s of the offens e, pr om ot ed r es pectforthe law , p ro v id e d ju st p u n ish m e n t fo r th e o ffe n se , affo rd e d a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to cr i m i nal conduct , pr ot ect ed the publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es byM r . C happl e, and p ro v id e d c o rr e c tio n a l tr e a tm e n t in th e m o s t e ffe c tiv e m a n n e r.

I I . D i s cus s i on M r. C hap ple now app eal s hi s sent ence, ar gu i ng i ti s unreasonab l e beca use the d istri ct co u rtim p rop erlyap p li ed a six -m o n th v arian ce ab o v e the ad v isory G ui del i nes r ange. I n s uppor t , he di s cr edi t s eac h of the r eas ons forthe var i ance , s ugges t i ng t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n: 1) concl udi ng he s t al ked and t err or i zed the vi ct i m bas ed mer el yon l ove l et t er s and poems s entt o her , w hi ch i s non- cr i m i nal and i rr el evan tcon du ct ; 2) consi deri ng his pri or st al king con du ctt ow ard M s. C annar s a, w hi ch i s unr el at ed t o t he offens e cha r ged; 3) fai l i ng t o expl ai n w hyt he ps y chol ogi cal harm t o M s . C annar s a’ s empl oy ee j us t i fi ed a va r i ance ; 4) cons i der i ng harm t o t he otheri ndi r ectvi ct i m s , w hi ch w as uns uppor t ed byany p ro o f; 5 ) c o n sid e rin g th e fa c t h is c rim e in v o lv e d tw o m a ili n g s, w h ich isM r . C happl e does notcont end, and the r ecor d does notdemonstr at e, 3 r eas onabl e not i ce of

t he var i ance w as notpr ovi ded. H e al s o does notcont es tt he m e th o d o f

c a lc u la tio n , b u t o n ly th e s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e . -8- i ns uffi ci entundert he G ui del i nes fora “va r i ance ”; and 6) concl udi ng he t ook advant age of

t he countr y ’ s fea rof t err or i s m , w hi ch he c l ai m s i s i rr el evants i nce t he mai l i ngs “occ ur r ed thr ee y ear s aft er9- 11. ” W hi l e M r . C happl e ac know l edges h e d id n o t prese rve a v ind ict iven ess c lai m in d istri ct co u rt , h e su b m it s the rec o rd s uppor t s a pr es um pt i on of vi ndi ct i venes s , as w el l as actual vi ndi ct i venes s , gi ven th e d istric t co u rt g a v e h im th e sa m e th irty -th re e -m o n th se n ten c e o rig in a lly i m pos ed. 3

I n cons i der i ng M r . C happl e’ s s ent ence on appea l , “w e r evi ew a di s tr i ct cour t ’ s s ent ence forabus e of di s cr et i on, as ki ng w hetheri ti s r eas onabl e undert he § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” United S tates v. G arci a-La ra , ___ F . 3 d ___ , ___ , 2 0 0 7 WL 2380991, at*1 ( 10t h C i r . A ug. 22, 2007) ( s l i p op. ) . W e empl oyan abus e of d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd b yre v ie w in g a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Id . at*2. T he § 3553( a) fac t or s w hi ch gui de the r eas onabl enes s i nqui ry“i ncl ude t he natur e of the offens e and c har act er i s t i cs of the defendant , as w el l as t he nee d fo r th e se n ten c e to re flec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e c rim e , to p ro v id e a d e q u a te det err ence , t o pr ot ectt he publ i c, and t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d t r ai ni ng ort r eatm ent. . . . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( percur i am ). W hil e w e defer t o the di stri ctcou rt ’s app l i cat i on of these-9-

fac t or s , w e w i l l notexer ci s e defer ence i f i tcomm i t s l egal err or , s uch as gi vi ng one fa ct ort oo m uch w ei ght , di s r egar di ng another , ori gnor i ng orm i s i nt erpr et i ng a p p lic a b le re a s o n a b le n e s s c a s e la w . See G arci a-La ra , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 3 8 0 9 9 1 , a t * 2 . T hus , w e defert o t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on w i thi n the bounds of re a s o n a b le n e s s . Id.

T he Supr eme C our t , i n R i ta v. Uni t ed Stat es , ___ U . S. ___, 127 S. C t . 2456 ( 2007) , m ade c l eara s ent ence fal l i ng out s i de the G ui del i nes r ange, l i ke the one a t i s s ue her e, i s notpers e ent i t l ed t o a “pr es um pt i on of unr eas onabl enes s . ” Id. at 2 4 6 7 ; G arci a-La ra , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 3 8 0 9 9 1 , at * 3 . R a th e r, a c o u rt m a y , in its di s cr et i on, concl ude a non- G ui del i nes s ent ence bes ts erves the purpos e of the § 3 5 5 3 (a ) s e n te n c in g fa c to rs . G arci a-La ra , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 3 8 0 9 9 1 , at * 4 . B u t if it di s r egar ds orgi ves t oo l i t t l e w ei ghtt o the G ui del i nes fac t or s , i tm us tfi nd re a s o n a b le ju s tific a tio n fo r d o in g s o u n d e r t h o s e fa c to rs . Id . “The fartherthe cour tdi ver ges fr om t he advi s or ygui del i ne r ange, the more compel l i ng the r eas ons fort he di ver gence m us tbe. ” Id. ( quot at i on m arks , al t er at i ons , and ci t at i on o m itt e d ). O n th e o th e r h a n d , a le ss e r b u t still “ sig n ifica n t” v a ria n c e n e e d s o n ly “s uffi ci entexpl anat i on and j us t i fi cat i on . . . . ” Id. “To ass es s the magni tude of a var i ance , w e l ook t o t he di ffe r ence betw een the advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange a nd t he s ent ence i m pos ed i n t erm s of both per cent age a nd abs ol ut e numberof m onths . ” Id.-10-

W e begi n byas s es s i ng t he magni tude of the compl ai ned- of var i ance . H er e, t h e v a r i a n c e i s s i x m o n t h s a b o v e th e G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f tw e n ty- o n e t o tw e n tyseven m on t hs, w hich con st i tutes a t w enty -tw o-percenti ncrease abov e t he h i gh est G ui del i nes r ange of

t w enty - s even mont hs . E ven underthe i ncr eas ed s crut i ny gi ven l es s erbuts t i l l s i gni fi cantvar i ance s , w e bel i eve the s ent ence i m pos ed w as r eas onabl e bas ed on the s uffi ci entexpl anat i on and j us t i fi cat i on pr ovi ded bythe d is tr ic t c o u rt in c o nju n c tio n w ith th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs . Fi r s t , i n r egar d t o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s cons i der at i on of M r . C happl e’ s pr i or conducti n s t al ki ng and t err or i zi ng M s . C annar s a, i tdi d s o i n det erm i ni ng the natur e of the offens e under§ 3553( a) . W hi l e M r . C happl e i m pl i es no evi dence s uppor t s t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on he s t al ked M s . C annar s a, he di d notobj ect t o t he fa ct s pr es ent ed i n t he pr es ent ence r eport . “I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatthe s ent enci ng cour ti s ent i t l ed t o r el yon uncont es t ed fa ct s cont ai ned i n the [pr es ent ence r eport ] forcert ai n s ent enci ng purpos es , ” i ncl udi ng t o dr aw concl us i ons aboutt he natur e of the offens e and the defendant ’ s char act er i s t i cs re le v a n t to th e s e n te n c in g fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Uni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , 4 7 1 F .3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 6 -6 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed, 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 8 9 0 (20 0 7 ). In addi t i on, w hi l e M r . C happl e as s er t s the di s tr i ctcour tdet erm i ned he s t al ked and ter ro riz e d M s. C a n n a rsa b a se d m e re lyo n lo v e lette rs a n d p o e m s, it is c lea r its concl us i on w as bas ed on the t ot al i tyof hi s conduct , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n herfea r i ng-11-

forherper s onal s afe t yeven be for e the mai l i ng of the tw o thr eat eni ng envel opes occu rr ed. Indeed , t his cou rtprevi ou sl ydeterm i ned “i ti s und i sputed that M s. C annar s a w as t he per s on C happl e had be en s t al ki ng and w ho C happl e w as s eeki ng t o t hr eat en [or ] i nt i m i dat e. ” C h ap p le , 198 Fed. A ppx. at750. T o now ar gue no evidence est abli shed h e st al ked M s. C ann ars a i s ext rem el yun persuasi ve. M s. C annar s a t es t i fi ed att r i al , and w hi l e nei therpartyfurni s hed the tr ans cr i ptof that tes tim o n y , itis e v id e n t th e d istric t co u rt c re d ited h e r te stim o n ya n d d id n o t re ly so lel yo n the p rese n tenc e re p o rtto co n clud e M r. C h ap p le st alke d h er.

I n addi t i on, t he fa ctM r . C happl e w as neverpr evi ous l yarr es t ed or convi ct ed fors t al ki ng M s . C annar s a di d notpr eventthe di s tr i ctcourtfr om c o n s id e ri n g s u c h p ri o r c o n d u c t in c o nju n c tio n w ith th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs . Inst ead, “cond uct that i s not form al l ycharged or i s not an el em ent of the o ffen se of convi ct i on m ayent eri nt o t he det erm i nat i on of the appl i cabl e gui del i ne s ent enci ng r ange. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. A l l en , 488 F. 3d 1244, 1255 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H ow ever , s uch conduc tm us tr el at e t o t he o ffe n s e o f

th e c o n v ic tio n . Id. H avi ng al r eadydet erm i ned M r . C happl e “s t al ked” M s . C annar s a, w hom he “w as s eeki ng t o thr eat en [or ] i nt i m i dat e, ” C h ap p le , 198 Fed. A ppx. at750, i ti s appar enthi s pr i orconductcul m i nat ed i n the i ns t ant o ffen se, w h ich h e a d m itted w as in tend ed to sc are h er. T h u s, w e d isag ree w ith M r. C happl e’ s cont ent i on t hathi s pr i orconduct , i n w hi ch he s entatl eas toneI n i nferr i ng t he di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n cons i der i ng hi s pr i ors t al ki ng 4 conductt ow ar d M s . C annar s a, M r . C happl e s um m ar i l ypoi nt s outt he G ui del i nes al r eadycont empl at e an upw ar d departur e for“extr eme conduct ” under§ 5K 2. 8, w h ich th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt a n d d istric t co u rt d id n o t co n sid e r. H o w e v e r, itis c lea r M r. C h a p p le r a ise d th is iss u e p rio r to se n ten c in g , an d b yfa ili n g to a p p ly § 5K 2. 8, i ti s appar entt he di s t r i ctcourtdi d notbel i eve hi s conductw arr ant ed appl i cat i on of thatG ui del i ne, buti ns t ead c ons i der ed s uch conduc tas one of the c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u p p o rt in g a v a ri a n c e . -12- w or r i s om e l et t ert o M s . C annar s a, w as notr el at ed t o the i ns t antoffe ns e of sen d ing threa tenin g co m m u n icati o n s. A cc o rdin g ly , the d istri ct co u rtd id n o t err i n cons i der i ng s uch pr i orconductas partof the natur e of hi s offe ns e. 4

N ext , w e not e M r . C happl e does notar gue i n hi s appea l br i ef thatt he d istric t co u rt e rre d in c o n sid e rin g th e p sy c h o lo g ica l an d o th e r n e g a tiv e im p a c ts t he mai l i ngs had on M s . C annar s a fort he purpos e of i m pos i ng a var i ance under § 3553( a) . A s t o herempl oy ee, w e bel i eve the uncont es t ed fa ct s i n the pr es ent ence r epor ts uffi ci ent l yes t abl i s h the ps y chol ogi cal and othernegat i ve i m pact s t he mai l i ngs had on herfort he purpos e of i m pos i ng a var i ance under § 3553( a) . L i ke M s . C annar s a, s he t es t i fi ed att r i al , and i ti s evi dentt he di s tr i ct c o u r tc r e d i t e d h e rt e s t i mo n y . Wh i l e t h i s c o u r tp r e v i o u s l yd e t e r mi n e d U. S . S . G. § 3D 1. 4( a) di d notappl yt o M s . C annar s a’ s empl oy ee, an i ndi r ectvi ct i m , fort he purpos e of a ppl y i ng t he tw o- l evel upw ar d departur e, w e di d notpr ecl ude the d i s t r i c tc o u r tf

r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i mp a c to f M r . Ch a p p l e ’ s ma i l i n g o n t h a ts a me empl oy ee unde rt he § 3553( a) s ent enci ng fac t or s fort he purpos e of a ppl y i ng aA s partof hi s ar gum ent , M r . C happl e s ugges t s t he di s tr i ctcourtcannot 5 c o n sid e r p sy c h o lo g ica l inju ryto in d ire c t v ictim s b e c a u se U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .3 o n ly p r o s c r i b e s a n u p wa r d d e p a r tu r e fo rd i r e c tv i c t i ms wh o s u ffe re x tr e me ps y chol ogi cal i nj ur y . H ow ever , even i f, as M r . C happl e cont ends , § 5K 2. 3 does notappl yt o i ndi r ectvi ct i m s , t he di s tr i ctcourtw as notpr event ed fr om c o n s id e ri n g h a rm to th e m in th e fo rm o f a v a ri a n c e u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S e e , e.g ., S tev e n s v . B a ttelle Me m ’l In st. , 4 8 8 F . 3 d 8 9 6 , 8 9 8 (11 th C ir . 6 2007) ( poi nt i ng outi n t he fa l l of 2001 an unknow n i ndi vi dual orgr oup m ai l ed l et t er s cont ai ni ng anthr ax t o r eci pi ent s i n Fl or i da, N ew Y or k, and W as hi ngt on, D .C .); Hat

f i l lv. The New York Ti m es C o. , 4 2 7 F . 3 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 4 (4th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( per cur i am ) ( expl ai ni ng “[i ] n t he af t erm ath of the Sept ember11 at t acks , t he nat i on w as al er t ed t o t he fa ctt hats om eone w as s endi ng l et t er s l ace d w i th anthr ax t hr ough t he mai l s . T he l et t er s w er e nots i m pl ydi r ect ed atpubl i c off i ci al s but appar ent l yatpr i vat e i ndi vi dual s as w el l . T hos e w ho handl ed mai l on a r egul ar b a sis w e re c o n c e rn e d fo r th e ir sa fe ty , an d e v e n o rd in a ryre sid e n ts w e re a d v ise d to ta k e s p e c ia l p re c a u tio n s w h e n o p e n in g th e irm a il.” ). See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. E vans , 4 7 8 F . 3 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 6 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), 7 cer t . deni ed , __ S . C t. __ , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 0 6 4 2 5 3 (O ct. 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) (N o . 0 7 -53 1 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. D udl ey , 463 F. 3d 1221, 1224 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; Uni t ed Stat es v. D a v ila , 4 6 1 F .3 d 2 9 8 , 2 9 9 -3 0 0 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 1485 (2 0 0 7 ); Un itedS ta tes v . Sc o tt , 4 4 1 F .3 d 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 2 4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. G ueva ra , 4 0 8 F .3 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 5 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. R eynolds , 3 8 1 F .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). -13- var i ance . 5

A s t o the ot her i nd i vidual s negati velyaffected byM r. C hap ple’ s m ai l i ng s, w e r ecogni ze the thr eatof bi ohaza r dous t err or i s m r eac hed i t s zeni th i n the fa l l of 2001 – t hr ee y ear s befor e hi s m ai l i ngs occurr ed. H ow ever , a numberof ca s es 6 s i nce 2001 e s t abl i s h a cont i nuat i on of t err or - r el at ed thr eat s i nvol vi ng s ubs t ance s m e a n t to re se m b le a n th ra x o r o th e r b io h a z a rd o u s s u b sta n c e s. In a d d iti o n , itis 7 s el f- evi dentt hatt hi s countr y , s i nce 2001, cont i nues t o exper i ence a hei ght ened-14-

fea rof t err or i s tact i vi t y , and i ndi vi dual s w ho bel i eve theyhave be en i n cont act w i t h bi ohaza r dous s ubs t ance s , l i ke anthr ax, cont i nue t o fea rforthei rper s onal heal t h and s afe t y . W hi l e no evi dence w as pr es ent ed es t abl i s hi ng the i m pactof M r . C happl e’ s m ai l i ngs on t he otheri ndi vi dual s w ho handl ed the enve l opes , the uncont es t ed fa ct s i n t he pr es ent ence r eporti ndi cat e the mai l carr i er , M us kogee pol i ce offi cer s , t he pos t al i ns pect or , pos t al w or ker s , and empl oy ees w i th the O kl ahoma H eal t h D epart m ental l came i n cont actw i th an enve l ope theyknew w as l eaki ng an uni dent i fi ed s ubs t ance . T her efor e, i tw as notunr eas onabl e forthe d istric t co u rt to m a k e a n in fe re n c e th a t th o se w h o h a n d led th e e n v e lo p e s lik e ly had conc ern fort hei rphy s i cal s afe tyand w el l - bei ng unt i l the s ubs t ance w as id e n tifie d a s n o t h a rm f u l. A f ter p ro v id in g M r. C h a p p le n o tice o f its in ten tio n to cons i dert hi s ci r cumst ance and an opportuni tyt o pr es entar gum ent , i tw as ap p rop ri ate fo r th e d istri ct co u rtto co n side r i t as p art of the n ature o f M r. C happl e’ s offe ns e fort he purpos e of de t erm i ni ng w hetherthe advi s oryG ui del i nes sent encing range m ett he § 35 53 (a) fact ors.

W hi l e M r . C happl e gene r al l ycompl ai ns the G ui del i nes pr ecl ude the di s t r i ct cou rtfrom con si deri ng t he m ai l i ng s separ at el yor theiri m pact on i nd i rectvict i m s, th is c a se d o e s n o t in v o lv e a n u p w a rd “ d e p a rtu re ” u n d e r th e G u id e lin e s, a s d id h is pr i orappea l . R ather , as t he di s t r i ctcourtexpl ai ned, i tappl i ed a “ var i ance ” under § 3553( a) , due t o t he fa i l ur e of the G ui del i nes t o t ake i nt o acc ountthe effec tof-15-

bot h m ai l i ngs on t he i ndi r ectvi ct i m s . I n otherw or ds , havi ng been pr ecl uded fr om appl y i ng an upw ar d “depa r tur e” ba s ed on the i m pactatl eas tone mai l i ng had on an i ndi r ectvi ct i m , on r emand t he di s tr i ctcour tappl i ed an upw ar d “var i ance ” t o t ake i nt o acc ounta ci r cumst ance w hi ch the G ui del i nes di d not . A s the di s tr i ct cour ts ugges t ed, M r . C happl e’ s offe ns e of mai l i ng thr eat eni ng comm uni cat i ons d id n o t i m p ac t on lythe in tend ed rec ipien t, M s. C an n arsa , b u t m an ym o re i ndi vi dual s – a s i tuat i on t he G ui del i nes di d notcont empl at e. L i ke the di s tr i ct cour t , w e bel i eve M r . C happl e’ s pr i ors t al ki ng conduct , t ogetherw i th the nega t i ve i m pacthi s m ai l i ngs had on M s . C annar s a and the mul t i pl e otheri ndi vi dual s w ho h a n d led th e e n v e lo p e s, is s u fficie n t, fo r th e p u rp o se o f a p p ly in g a six -m o n th u p w ard v arian ce , to d ist ing u ish M r. C h ap p le’s offe n se f rom that o f a n o rdin ary d e fe n d a n t w h o m a ils a th re a ten in g c o m m u n ica tio n . W h ile w e p re v io u sly det erm i ned M r . C happl e’ s t hi r t y - thr ee- m onth s ent ence fel l “cl ear l yout s i de of the n a tio n a l n o rm e s ta b lis h e d b yth e G u id e lin e s fo r t h e c ri m e s o f c o n v ic tio n ,” C h ap p le , 198 Fed. A ppx. at751 ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) , w e now co n clud e a thirty -th ree -m o n th se n tenc e is reas o n ab le ba sed o n the d istri ct co u rt ’s su ffici en t exp lana ti o n an d justi fica ti o n in co njun cti o n w ith § 3 5 5 3 (a).

Fi nal l y , as pr evi ous l yi ndi cat ed, the di s tr i ctcourts t at ed a thi r ty - thr eem o n th se n tenc e w as re aso n ab le af ter co n side ri n g all o f th e se n tenc ing fa ctors under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . T hus , i tdoes notappea ri tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on or-16-

ot herw i s e i m perm i s s i bl ygave a nyone fa ct ort oo m uch w ei ght , di s r egar ded a n o th e r fa c to r, o r i g n o re d o r m is in te rp re te d a p p lic a b le re a s o n a b le n e s s c a s e la w . W e defert o t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng an upw ar d s i xm o n th v a ri a n c e , w h ic h w e b e lie v e is w ith in th e b o u n d s o f re a s o n a b le n e s s . G arci a-La ra , 2007 W L 2380991, at*2 . B as ed on thi s det erm i nat i on and the fa ct M r. C h a p p le d id n o t p re se rv e a v in d ictiv e n e ss c laim , w e d e c lin e to a d d re ss h is v in d ictiv e n e ss a rg u m e n t.

I I I . C oncl us i on Fort hes e r eas ons , w e AF F I RM M r. C hap ple’ s concu rr ent s entences.

E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge