T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrinesof * l awof the ca s e, resj udi cata and c ol l aterales toppel . T he courtgeneral lydi s favors the citati on of order s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an orderand j udgm entm aybe cited under the term s and conditi ons of 10th C ir . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### S e p t e m b e r22,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 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. WALT E R E DWARD K OS T I CH , D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 5184 ( N . D . O kl ahoma) ( D. Ct . No . 0 5 - CR - 1 3 - T CK )

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , 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 er m 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 er m 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. W al t erE dw ar d K os t i ch, J r . , w as char ged w i t h fourcr i m i nal count s ar i s i ng o u to f a h o u s e fi r e s e tb ya n i n c e n d i a r yd e v i c e o n J a n u a r y1 2 , 2 0 0 5 . At t h e t i me of t he fi r e, fouri ndi vi dual s , i ncl udi ng a four t een mont h- ol d chi l d, w er e i n bed orH e w asacquitted of Count s 3 and 4: m al i ci ous damage and des tructi on, by 1 m e an s o f f irean dane xp lo siv e , o f re a l p ro p e rtyu se dina c tiv itya f f e c tin ginter state c o m m e rc e (C o unt 4 ) inv io latio no f 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 (i) an du se o f f irean dane xp lo siv e to c o m m it a f

e lo ny , to w it, m a licio u s d am a g e an dd e stru c tio no f re a l p ro p e rty(C o unt 3 ) in v io latio no f

1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 (h )( 1 ), r e sp e c tiv e ly. T h e 2 0 0 4 e d iti o no f

th e U n itedS tate s S e nten c in gG u id e lin e s M anu a l w a s u se din 2 thi s cas e.

- 2- as l eep i n t he hous e. O n J une 27, 2005, K os t i ch pl ed gui l t yt o t he unl aw ful p o sses sion o f a d estruc ti v e d ev ice in v iolati o n o f 2 6 U . S . C . § 5 8 6 1 (d) (C o u n t 2). A j ur yt r i al w as hel d on t he r emai ni ng count s ; he w as found gui l t yof t he unl aw ful m a n u fa c tu re o f

a n u n re g is te re d d e s tr u c tiv e d e v ic e in v io la tio n o f 2 6 U .S .C . § 5861( f) ( C ount 1) . O n Sept ember 30, 2005, K os t i ch w as s ent ence d t o 63 m ont hs 1 i m pr i s onm enton bot h count s t o run concurr ent l yand w as or der ed t o pay $154, 030. 36 i n r es t i tut i on. K os t i ch fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l chal l engi ng t he cal cul at i on of hi s offe ns e l evel undert he gui del i nes , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof a t w o l e v e l u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e , a n d t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e a m o u n to f

r e s t i tu t i o n . We exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and A F F I R M. Backg r ound : A Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( PSR ) w as pr epar ed i n advanc e of K os t i ch’ s s ent enci ng and r ecomm ended a bas e offens e l evel of 18 fora vi ol at i on o f § 5 8 6 1 (d), ( f). See U SSG §2K 2. 1( a) ( 5) . T he bas e offens e l evel w as i ncr eas ed 2 byt w o l evel s underU SSG §2K 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) beca us e the offens e i nvol ved a- 3-

d e stru c tiv e d e v ice . T h e b a se o ffe n se lev e l w a s in c re a se d a n a d d iti o n a l fo u r le v e ls underU SSG §2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) beca us e the des t ruct i ve devi ce w as us ed i n connec t i on w i t h anotherfel onyoffe ns e, ar s on. T hus , t he PSR r ecomm ended a n adj us t ed offe ns e l e ve l of

24 . Bas e d o n a Cr i mi na l H i s t oryCat e go r yof I , t he PSR cal culat ed the gu i deli ne rang e as 51 to 63 m on t hs i m pri sonm ent. T he P S R al so not ed the di s t r i ctcour thad the opt i on of i m pos i ng r es t i tut i on as a condi t i on of su p erv ised release an d rec o m m en d ed $ 1 5 4 , 0 3 0 . 3 6 b ase d o n the h o m e o w n er’s i ns ur ance company ’ s s ubm i s s i on of an a ffi davi tas t o t he out s t andi ng amount of loss. K o sti ch o bjected to the fo u r l ev el i n cre ase u n d er § 2 K 2 . 1 (b)(5 ), the fail u re t o i ncl ude a tw o l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , and t o t he cal cul at i on of r es t i tut i on. T he di s t r i ctcour tagr eed a t w o l evel r educt i on for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yw as w arr ant ed, butoverrul ed K os t i ch’ s ot her o bje c tio n s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t m o v e d fo r a n u p w a rd d e p a rt u re u n d e r, in tera lia , A p p li ca ti o n N o te 8 to U S S G § 2 K 2 . 1 , w h ich p rov ides fo r an u p w ard d ep arture w hen t he o ffen se l evel does no t“adeq uatel ycaptur e t he seri ou sness of t he o ffen se beca us e of the type of de s t ruct i ve devi ce i nvol ved, t he r i s k t o t he publ i c w el far e, o r t h e ri s k o f

d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d ily inju ry th a t th e d e s tr u c tiv e d e v ic e c re a te d .” O verK os t i ch’ s oppos i t i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed the governm ent ’ s m ot i on, fi ndi ng a tw o l evel upw ar d departur e w as appr opr i at e. T he r es ul t i ng offe ns e l evel w as 24, l eadi ng t o a gui del i ne r ange of 51 t o 63 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . A ft er- 4-

c o n sid e rin g th e fa c to rs s e t fo rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) to e n su re a re a so n a b le s ent ence , t he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d K os t i ch t o 63 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entand di r ect ed hi m t o pay$154, 030. 36 i n r es t i tut i on. D i s cus s i on : K os t i c h a ga i n c ha l l e ng e s t he fo url e ve l e nh a nc e mentun de rU SSG §2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) , the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof a tw o l evel upw ar d departur e under A p p lic a tio n N o te 8 to § 2 K 2 .1 , a n d th e c a lc u la tio n o f th e a m o u n t o f

re s titu tio n . K o sti ch d o es n o t cha ll en g e the rea so n ab lene ss o f th e se n tenc e u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). W e c o n s id e r e a c h o f h is a rg u m e n ts in tu rn . I. FourLevelE nhancem ent W e r evi ew l egal ques t i ons i nvol vi ng a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of an e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r t h e g u id e lin e s d e n o v o a n d fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. Moz ee , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 0 8 2 , 1 0 8 8 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 2 5 3 (20 0 5 ). Sect i on 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) pr ovi des t hat“[i ] f t he defendantus ed orpos s es s ed any fi rearm or am m un i t i on i n co nn ect i on w i t h an otherfel on yoffense, ” his offense leve l i s to b e inc rea sed b yfo u r l ev els. A p p li ca ti o n N o te 1 g ives the term “fi r earm , ” the s ame “m eani ng gi ven thatt er m i n 18 U . S. C . § 921( a) ( 3) . ” 18 U . S. C . § 921( a) ( 3) i ncl udes “anydes t ruct i ve devi ce” w i t hi n i t s defi ni t i on of a fi r e a r m. “ De s t ru c t i v e d e v i c e ” i n c l u d e s a n yi n c e n d i a r yd e v i c e . 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 21 (a) (4) (i ). T he term “fel on yoffense” i n § 2K 2. 1(b)( 5), “m eans an yoffense- 5-

( fede r al , s t at e, orl ocal ) puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm entfora t er m exce edi ng one y ear , w hetherornota cr i m i nal char ge w as br ought , orconvi ct i on obt ai ned. ” U S S G § 2 K 2 . 1 , co m m en t. (n.4). U n d er O k laho m a law , if co n v ict ed , K o sti ch ’s c o n d u c t w o u ld c o n s titu te fir s t- d e g re e a rs o n . O K LA . S TAT . t i t . 2 1 , § 1 4 0 1 . As A ppl i cat i on N ot e 4 makes cl ear , t he defendantneed notbe convi ct ed of the u n d e rl y in g o ffe n s e . U S S G § 2 K 2 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .4 ). K os t i ch does notchal l enge the cl as s i fi cat i on of ar s on as a fe l onyfor pu rposes of §2 K 2. 1(b)( 5), no r does he argue t he g ov ernm ent fai l ed to est abli sh hi s conductm ett he el ement s of ar s on. R ather , K os t i ch r el i es on A ppl i cat i on N ot e 15, w hi ch pr ovi des t hati f t he “[ ] ot herfel onyoffe ns e” i n §2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) i s an

“ e x p l o s i v e s o rfi r e a r ms p o s s e s s i o n o rt r a ffi c k i n g o ffe n s e [ ] , ” i td o e s n o ta p p l y . He cl ai m s t hatbeca us e the ar s on i n t hi s cas e w as comm i t t ed byan i ncendi arydevi ce, it i s a n “ e x p lo siv e s o r fire a rm s” o ffe n se a n d th u s c a n n o t b e u se d to e n h a n c e h is s e n t e n c e u n d e r§ 2 K2 . 1 ( b ) ( 5 ) . Ko s t i c h f u r t h e ra s s e r t s t h a tb e c a u s e t h e s a me des t ruct i ve devi ce w as us ed i n hi s count s of convi ct i on and the ar s on offe ns e, th e ya re “ in p a ri ty” a n d § 2 K 2 .1 (b )( 5 ) d o e s n o t a p p ly. W e r ej ect ed s i m i l arar gum ent s i n Uni t ed Stat es v. E at on , 260 F. 3d 1232 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) . T her e, t he courtenhanc ed Eat on’ s s ent ence under§2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) b e c a u se h e h a d tra n sfe rre d th re e p ip e b o m b s to a n in d iv id u a l k n o w in g th e yw o u ld be us ed t o fel oni ous l ydes t r oya ca rand/ ort o comm i tm ur der . E at on ar gued “the comm i s s i on of a fel onyoffe ns e s uch as ar s on orm ur deri s coi nci dent al t o t he- 6-

b o m b s an d n o t sep ara te fro m their i n tend ed u se a n d the e n h an ce m en t i s the refo re notw arr ant ed. ” Id . at 1 2 3 8 . W e rejec ted th e a rg u m e n t: I f t hi s cour tacc ept s E at on’ s argu m en t, a s ent ence enhanc ement under §2K 2 . 1 (b) ( 5) w oul d neverbe perm i s s i bl e i n connec t i on w i t h a convi ct i on for any cr i m e i nvol vi ng a destruct i ve devi ce. T hi s i s nott he ru le. T he m ere fact t hat a dest ruct i ve device has the potential to fa cil it ate a fe lon yd o es n o t exe m p t th e a p p li ca ti o n o f § 2 K 2 . 1 (b)(5 ). Id . Si m i l ar l y , A ppl i cat i on N ot e 15 does notpr ecl ude us e of a r s on as “another fel onyoffe ns e” be caus e i ti s notan “e xpl os i ves orfi r earm s pos s es s i on or t r aff i cki ng offe ns e[] . ” Thi s i s t rue eve n t hough i thappene d t o be comm i t t ed u sin g a n e x p lo siv e d e v ice . N o r is it re lev a n t th a t K o stic h w a s n o t ch a rg e d w ith ars on or t hat the sam e dest ruct i ve d evice w as used t o co m m i tt he arson o ffen se and the offens es of convi ct i on. L i ke i n E at on , w e s ee no e r r ori n appl y i ng t he fourl evel enhanc ement i n t hi s cas e. II. U pw ard D epa rt ure A fter B oo ker, “[w ] hen r evi ew i ng a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of t he S entenci ng G uidel i nes, w e revi ew l egal quest i on s de novo and w e r evi ew any fa ctua l fi n d ing s fo r clear e rror, g iving d u e d efere n ce to the d istri ct co u rt ’s appl i cat i on of t he gui del i nes t o t he fa ct s . ” Unit ed S t ates v. Mart i nez, 418 F. 3d 1 1 3 0 , 1 1 3 3 (1 0 th C ir .) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 8 4 1 (2 0 0 5 ). W h e n re v iew in g u p w a rd d e p a rtu re s, w e e m p lo ya fo u r-p a rt tes t: (1) w h ethe r t h e fac tual circu m stan ce s su p p o rt ing a d ep arture a re- 7-

per m i s s i bl e depa r tur e fa ct or s ; ( 2) w heth er the depa r tur e fa ct or s r el i ed u p o n b yth e d istric t co u rt re m o v e th e d e fe n d a n t f ro m th e a p p lica b le G u ideline h ea rt land thu s w arran ti n g a d ep arture; (3) w h ethe r t h e re co rd s uffi ci ent l ys uppor t s t he fa ctual bas i s under l y i ng t he depa r tur e; and ( 4) w hethert he degr ee of departur e i s r eas onabl e. Un itedS ta tes v . Wo lfe , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A ll o f th e s e s te p s a re s u bje c t to a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . Id . T he degr ee of an upw ar d departur e i s “r eas onabl e” i f t he di s t r i ctcour t“pr eci s el yl ay [s ] out i t s r eas oni ng and ana l y s i s as t o w hyi ti s s el ect i ng a part i cul ardegr ee of departur e” s uffi ci entt o “gi ve us r eas onabl e i ndi ci a thatt he s ent ence t he di s t r i ct cour tpr onounces i s pr opor t i onal t o t he cr i m e comm i t t ed. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P ro ffi t , 3 0 4 F . 3 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 1 2 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . O r d i n a r i l y, “[t ] he di s t r i ctcour tacc om pl i s hes t hi s t as k byus i ng anyr eas onabl e met hodol ogy hi t ched t o t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes t o j us t i fyt he r eas onabl enes s of t he departur e. ” Id . (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A ppl i cat i on N ot e 8 t o §2K 2. 1 al l ow s an upw ar d departur e w her e the defe ndant ’ s offe ns e l evel “does notadequa t el ycaptur e the s er i ous nes s of t he o ffe n se b e c a u se o f

th e typ e o f

d e stru c tiv e d e v ice in v o lv e d , the risk to th e p u b lic w el far e, ort he r i s k of dea t h ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ur yt hatt he des t ruct i ve devi ce cr eat ed. ” A ppl i cat i on N ot e 8 al s o cr os s - r efe r ence s U SSG §5K 2. 2 w hi ch author i zes an upw ar d departur e “[ i ] f s i gni fi cantphy s i cal i nj ur yr es ul t ed” f r om t he d e fe n d a n t’s c o n d u c t. In su c h a c a se , “[ t]h e e x ten t o f th e in c re a se o rd in a rily s houl d depend on the ext entof t he i nj ur y , t he degr ee t o w hi ch i tm aypr ove- 8-

per m anent , and the ext entt o w hi ch the i nj ur yw as i nt ended orknow i ngl yr i s ked. ” Id . R ely ing o n A p p li ca ti o n N o te 8, t h e d istri ct co u rtag ree d to a d ep arture b a se d o n “ th e risk o f

d e a th o r se rio u s b o d ilyinju ryto th e [ h o m e o w n e r a n d h is fami l y ] and t o ot herfami l i es l i vi ng on ei t hers i de of the hous e had the fi r e s pr ead t o nei ghbor i ng hom es , ” as w el l as t he fa ctt he homeow ners uffe r ed s m okeinh alati o n as a co n seq u en ce o f th e fir e started b yK o sti ch . (R . V o l. V I. at 40 . ) It s et t l ed on tw o l evel s beca us e “[ m ] os tanal ogous gui del i nes pr ovi de a tw o- l evel i ncr eas e fort hi s s ubj ect . ” (Id . ) T he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed the depa r tur e “c oul d be m or e, t her e’ s no ques t i on, ” butbas ed on the offens es char ged and K os t i ch’ s l ack o f a c ri m in a l h is to ry d e c id e d to im p o s e o n ly tw o le v e ls . (Id .) Ko s t i c h c h a l l e n g e s t h e p r o p r i e t yo f g r a n t i n g a n u p wa r d d e p a r tu r e a ta l l . He arg u es th e u n adjusted g u ideline ra n g e w as “ ad eq u ate” an d that “the o n lyinjury not ed ats ent enci ng and t es t i fi ed t o att r i al w as m i nors m oke i nhal at i on [s uffe r ed byt he homeow ner , w hi ch] cert ai nl y[w as ] notl i fe thr eat eni ng ors er i ous . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at18. ) K os t i ch al s o not es t hatno ot herm ember s of t he hous ehol d r ece i ved medi cal t r eatm ent . T hus , he ar gues , pr oper t ydamage w as t he m a in iss u e a t se n ten c in g a n d th e a p p lica tio n o f N o te 8 w a s “ u n n e c e ss a ry , an d is notj us t i fi ed fort he s m al l i ncr eas e i n t he s ent ence i m pos ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t . ” (Id . a t 1 9 .) W e di s agr ee. E nhance m entof a de fenda nt ’ s offe ns e l evel m aybe- 9-

w arr ant ed ei t herw her e hi s conductcaus es phy s i cal i nj ur yorpos es t he r i s k of c a u s in g inju ry. See U S S G § 2 K 2 .1 , co m m e n t. (n .8 ); § 5 K 2 .2 . H e re it i s undi s put ed the ow nerof t he home suffer ed s m oke i nhal at i on and had t o r ece i ve m edi cal t r eatm ent . A s t he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l ynot ed, “[h] i s i nj ur ym eet s t he gui del i ne def

i ni t i on forbodi l yi nj ur ys etfor t h i n [t he] s ent enci ng gui del i ne[s ] . ” (R . V o l. V I a t 4 0 .); s ee U S S G § 1 B 1 . 1 , co m m en t. (n.1(B )). E v en if su ch an injury di d notw arr anta tw o- l evel upw ar d departur e byi t s el f, A ppl i cat i on N ot e 8 of §2 K 2. 1 all ow s upw ard dep artures w here t he d efen dan t ’s con du ctpo ses the “ri sk of dea t h ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ur y . ” D es pi t e hi s evi dentl ack of conce r n fort he heal t h of t he i ndi vi dual s r epos ed i n t he home t o w hi ch he s etfi r e, K os t i ch conce des “hi s conductw as r eckl es s and coul d [have ] caus ed per s onal har m and i nj ur y . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at18. ) K os t i ch not es t hat“[l ] ucki l y , no one w as s er i ous l yhur t . ” (Id . ) H e i s corr ect— i tw as for tunat e fort he vi ct i m s and for tunat e forhi m s el f. I n anyevent , K os t i ch’ s conductcl ear l yfal l s w i t hi n t he m eani ng of t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne pr ovi s i ons . K os t i ch pr ovi des no convi nci ng r eas ons t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i m pos i t i on of a tw o l evel enhanc ement w as an abus e of di s cr et i on. I I I. R es t i t ut i on

“ In e v a lu a tin g th e d istric t co u rt’s a w a rd o f v ictim re stitu tio n , w e re v iew its fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Kr avchuk , 335 F. 3d 1147, 1156 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) . “W e r evi ew i t s cal cul at i on and ul t i m at e aw ar d of r es t i tut i on for- 10-

abus e of di s cr et i on . . . . ” Id . T he s ubs t ance of K os t i ch’ s obj ect i on t o t he amount of r es t i tut i on i s t hatt he amount w as i m per m i s s i bl ys pecul at i ve bec aus e the ca l cul at i on w as pr emi s ed on an undocument ed bus i nes s run outof t he vi ct i m ’ s hom e. T hi s ar gum enti gnor es the fac tual rec o rd c o n side red b ythe d istri ct co u rtb elow . C o n tr aryto K o sti ch ’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e a m o u n t o f lo ss w a s u n d o c u m e n ted , the d istric t co u rt e x p re ss ly r e l i e d u p o n a n a ffi d a v i ts u b m i t t e d b y t h e v i c t i m ’ s h o m e o w n e ri n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y, F arm B u rea u , as to the a m o u n t of loss. A d d it ion all y , as th e d istri ct co u rt sp e c ifica llya d d re ss e d b e lo w , the v ictim ’s F a rm B u re a u p o licyc o v e re d o n ly per s onal pr oper t y , notbus i nes s r el at ed l os es . T he di s t r i ctcour ts t at ed: I don’ tt hi nk anyof [the bus i nes s l os s es ar e] b eing reim b u r s ed. I tw as t he des t ruct i on of t he hous e, t he per s onal pr oper t yi n t he hous e, and the l i vi ng expens es . . . – t her e’ s not hi ng her e ot her t han w hatFar m B ur eau has fi l ed an a ffi davi ton. T her e’ s nothi ng aboutbus i nes s expens es or bu sine ss l os s es oranyof t hat . A nd i f t hat ’ s noti ncl uded - - i f y ou have info rm ati o n that’s in clud ed , w h y , I w an t t o h ea r i t, b u t othe rw ise y o u ’re a rg u in g a b o u t s o m e th in g th a t’ s n o t p a rt o f th is re s titu tio n . (R . V o l. V I. at 3 1 -3 2 .) K o stic h c o u ld n o t p ro v id e th e d istric t co u rt a b a sis fo r h is obj ect i on, norcan he on appea l . U ns ubs t ant i at ed conc erns t hata r es t i tut i on or der is o v e ri n c lu s iv e is in s u ffic ie n t to o v e rt u rn a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s re s titu tio n o rd e r. G i ven the r ecor d, t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng $ 1 5 4 ,0 3 0 .3 6 in re s titu tio n .- 11-

AF F I RMED . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge