United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1014

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of South Dakota.

Richard Allen Humphreys, also *

known as Israel Humphreys, also * [PUBLISHED]

known as Prophet Israel Humphreys, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 16, 2003

Filed: December 22, 2003

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On March 8, 2001, Richard Allen Humphreys told others that either he or one

of his followers would douse President Bush with a flammable material and throw a

match on him. The Government charged Humphreys with making threats against the

President of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). A jury found him

guilty. In projecting Humphreys’ sentence, the presentence report (PSR) did not

recommend a four-level decrease in Humphreys’ offense level under U.S.S.G. §

2A6.1(b)(5) (2002), which authorizes a district court to decrease the offense level for
*

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota. 

-2-

threatening communications offenses by four levels if no other adjustments under §

2A6.1 apply and “the offense involved a single instance evidencing little or no

deliberation.” Over Humphreys’ objection, the district court*

 found Humphreys did

not qualify for the decrease because he made statements threatening the President in

an Internet chat room on February 2, 2001. The district court sentenced Humphreys

to thirty-seven months in prison. 

Humphreys appeals asserting the § 2A6.1(b)(5) decrease applies. The district

court did not commit clear error in finding Humphreys’ offense did not involve “a

single instance evidencing little or no deliberation” within the meaning of §

2A6.1(b)(5). Although “single instance” does not necessarily mean “single threat,”

“single instance” suggests both a temporal relationship and a single purpose or

scheme. United States v. Sanders, 41 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v.

Freeman, 176 F.3d 575, 579 (1st Cir. 1999). The term suggests the reduction applies

only to “defendants whose threats are the product of a single impulse, or are a single

thoughtless response to a particular event.” Sanders, 41 F.3d at 484. Humphreys

communicated his threat about burning Bush to different people on different

occasions, specifically, in the chat room, by fax to the White House, and in person to

three individuals at different times. See United States v. Fann, 41 F.3d 1218, 1219

(8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“single-instance” reduction did not apply because

defendant communicated threat more than once to different people using different

modes of communication). 

Humphreys contends the chat room statements were not threatening and were

not meant to be taken seriously. In the online chat, Humphreys stated:
-3-

HE IS NOW, HE FEARS ME SOMETHING TERRIBLE, GORE DOES

TOO BECAUSE I PRAYED FOR A TIE IN THE ELECTION AND

GOT IT WHEN THE GORE PEOPLE TOLD ME THAT IF I WANTED

JUSTICE I NEEDED A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE, SAID TO THEM,

“SO BE IT” GOT THE TIE AND DIFFERENT CANDIDATE, NOW

GOING TO ASK BUSH FOR JUSTICE, AND IF I DON’T GET IT I

AM GOING TO PRAY FOR A BURNING BUSH. GET IT? SO IF

YOU HEAR THAT A MAN RUNS UP AND THROWS GASOLINE

AND A MATCH TO BUSH YOU WILL KNOW THAT GOD DID

SPEAK THROUGH THE BURNING BUSH. LOL

Even if “LOL” indicates Humphreys was “laughing out loud,” as he contends, the

district court did not commit clear error in finding Humphreys’ chat room statement

threatened the President. Humphreys knowingly and willfully made the statement

and a reasonable person could view it as a serious expression of intent to inflict

bodily harm. See Freeman, 176 F.3d at 578 (defining threat under § 875(c)). 

Because the district court did not commit clear error in denying the §

2A6.1(b)(5) decrease, we affirm Humphreys’ sentence. We recommend to the

Bureau of Prisons that Humphreys serve his term in the Federal Medical Center,

however. The record shows Humphreys suffers from a bipolar disorder and has had

several periods of hospitalization because of his delusions. His symptoms are

treatable with medication. Hopefully, medication over a significant period of years

will result in his being able to live outside the prison confines, free of delusions and

the type of behavior he exhibited here. 

______________________________