# United States Court of App eals F orth eSeve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 A rgued A ugust 4, 20 10 Deci ded A ugust 1 7, 20 10

B efo re R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D A V ID F. H A M IL T O N , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09

- 3977 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v . J US TI N HOUGHTALI NG,

D ef endant-Appellant. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s, Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N o. 1: 08- cr- 893 J am es T. M oo dy, Judg e .

O R D E R W hi l e se r vinga st at e se nt en ce f o r fi r st
- deg r ee murde r, de fen dan t J us tin Hou g ht al i ng sent a l ett er to a federa l dist ri ct j ud ge thre ate ni ng to ki l l her. The r etur n address and D N A o n the e nvel ope l ed author i ti es to H oughta l i ng, and he ple d guil ty to m ai l i ng a thre ate ni ng l ett er to a fede r alj udg e i n v i o l at i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 8 76 ( c)
. T he di st r i ct co ur t se nt en ce d Hought al i ng to the s ta tu to r y maxi m um –120 m ont hs in pri so n –mor e th ando ubl e th e hi g h e nd o fthe cal cul ate d Sente nci ng Guidel i nes r ange of41 to 51 m onths, to b e se rv ed conse cuti ve to the s tat e sente nce. Houghtal i ng appeal s, ar gui ng tha t h is se ntence i s unre aso nabl e a nd exce ssi ve b ec au se , he co n te n d s, th e d ist ric t c ou rtrelie d to o h ea vily on th e l e t t e r ’ s v ile ra c istan d an tiSe m i ti c co ntent and fa i l ed to co nsi der hi s per sonalhi sto ryand char acte ri sti cs. N ON P R E C E D E N T I A L D I S P OS I T I ON T o be cited onlyin acc ordanc e w ith Fed . R. A pp . P. 32 .1N o. 09

- 3977 Page 2

W e a ffi rm the sente nce. The di str i ct c ourtco nsi dered the re l evant f acto rs and prov i ded a r eas oned basi s fo r exer ci si ng it s d i scr eti on un der 18 U

. S. C. § 3553. The di str i ct c ourtf ocuse d on the abho rr ent c onte nt o fthe l ett erand the gra tui tous cr uel ty the thre at att em pted to i nfl i ct on the j ud ge. The di str i ct c ourtwas not i m press ed by the m i ti gat i on arg um ents and m ade a re aso nabl e cho i ce t o prot ect the pu bl i c f ro m H oughta l i ng by i ncapaci tat i ng hi m f oras l ong as th e l a w w o u l d a l l o w. W e s ta rtw ith th e c on te n ts of th e le tt er . H ou gh ta lin g c l a i m e d t o h ea d a c u rre n tly dorm ant A ry an org an iza tio n th at follow s t h e t ea c h in gs of tw o w h ite su p re m ac ist s. He accuse d the j ud ge ofbeing a “r ace tr ai tor and a J ud e l ove r w hor e who pros ti tutes her sel fto the ni gge rs , spi cs a nd J ude ’ s. ” He r efer r ed rep eated ly to the t r ag i c m ur der s o fthe j udg e’ s m o th era nd h u sb an d in 2 0 0 5
. H o u g h t a lin g t h en st at ed h is d es ire to ca tc h th e jud ge so th at h e “ c ou ld a c c o mpl i s h the de e d tha th a s s t a r ted w i ththe mur de r o fy o urwh o r e o fa mo the r a nd J ud e husband.” He al so w ar ned the j ud ge that i fso m ethi ng happened to hi m , o ther m em ber s o f hi s o rg ani zati on would ta ke hi s pl ace, and he thre ate ned to “exte rm i nate” herf am i l y nam e. H e s i gne d o ff wi th the s t a t e men t, “ I wi l l b e f o r y o u a nd whe n I do I wi l l k i l l y o u. I am l i ke d ea th

. I w ill no t b e s to p p ed .” By w ay ofm i ti gat i on, H oughta l i ng relie s o n pers onali nfo rm ati on i n the prese ntence re port
. His parents were re port edl y physi cal l y abusi ve. He beg an dri nki ng al coholatag e 7 an d sm ok in g m ar ij u an a a t a ge 8. A t a ge 9 h e w as d iag n os ed w i t h a t t e n t i o n d efic it hypera ctiv ity d isorderand bi pol ardi sor der. Afte r thre ate ni ng hi s f am i l y, he was s ent t o a you th hom e, w he re he l ived for tw o years. T roub le w ith th e law l ed him to spe nd the yea rs between the age s o f14 and 18 i n a j uveni l e dete nti on ce nter
. He re port ed that afterhi s r el eas e ata g e 18 , he c o ns um ed al co ho l, mar ij ua na , a nd “ ec st as y ” dai l y, a nd LS D o n the wee k en ds, b ut he de ni ed ev err ec ei vingo r e ve n n ee di ngt r ea tmentf o r s ubs ta nc e ab us e. He sa i d tha t he w or ked f or hi s f ather ’ s ro ofi ng com pany f or a w hi l e. W i thi n tw o yea rs after his rel eas e, how eve r, he was co nvi cted ofm urder afteran a ccom pli ce in a r obbe ryat tem pt shotand ki l l ed a sto re em plo yee . H oughta l i ng has had no conta ct w i th hi s f am i l y si nc e h is im p risonm ent. W hi l e i n pr i so n, Hought al i ngb eg ant ak i ngTho r az i ne , a n a nt i

- psy ch o ti c m edi ca ti o n. T h e p re se n te n c e re p or t c alc u lat ed a Se n te n c in g G u id elin e ran ge of 41 to 51 m on th s in pr i so n. T he c al cul at i o n b eg anwi ththe g uidel i ne f o r Thr ea te ni ngo r Har as sing Com m unica ti on, U
. S. S. G. § 2 A 6. 1, and appli ed vi cti m - re l ate d up w ar d adj ustm ents because H ou gh ta lin g t ar ge te d th e jud ge ba se d on h er st at u s as a go ve rn m en t officia l an d ba se d on h is ( er ro ne o us , a s i th a pp e ns ) b e l i e ftha th e r h us b a nd wa s J e wi s h, U. S
. S
. G. § 3 A1
. 2 ( Of f i ci al Vi ct i m ) ; § 3A1. 1( a) ( H at e Cr i m e M o ti va ti o n)
. Aft er g i ving H o ug ht al i ng cr edi t for acc ep ting re sp on sib ility , U .S.S.G . § 3E 1.1 , th e p re se n te n c e re p or t c alc u lat ed a fin al off en se lev el of 1 5.N o. 09

- 3977 Page 3

T u rn in g t o c r i m i n a l h ist or y, by th e a ge of 18 , H ou gh ta lin g h ad five j u ve n ile adj ud i cati ons and tw o cri m in al c onvict i ons, none ofwh i ch co unted towards hi s cr i m i nal hi sto rysco re . S ee U
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 2( d). A fte r turni ng 18 , H oughta l i ng co m m i tte d fo ur o ther cr i m es : di so r der l yc o nduc t, m ur der, a nd ( whi l e i m pr i so ne d f o rmurde r ) b o thpe rj ur y a nd unl awfulpo ss es si o n o fa wea po n. H o ug ht al i ng ’ s fi na l cr i m i na l hi st o r y sc o r e was 14, pl ac i ng hi m i n the hi g he s t c r i mi na l hi s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f VI, pr o du c i ng a g ui de l i ne r a ng e o f41 to 51 m onths, wh i ch the parti es do not dispute. H oughta l i ng r equeste d a w i thi n-guidel i nes sente nce t o run co ncurr entl y with hi s s tat e se n te n c e, so th at th er e w o u l d be n o a d d itio n al p u n ish m en t fo r th e t h re at
. T o s u p p or t h is m i ti gat i on a rgum ents, he s ubm i tte d a r ep or t fro m the Dep ar tm ent o fJ usti ce s how i ng tha t som eo newi th hi s p e r s o na lh i s tor y –i ncl ud i ng physi calabuse, subst ance abuse, ea rl y a nti soc i al be ha vi o r, a ca demi c f ai l ur e, a nd a tt en ti o n di so r der s – ha s a gr ea te r l i k el i ho o d o fv i o l en t behavi or . He ar gued, however, thathi s defi ci enci es coul d be o ver com e with propertr eat m ent, w hi ch he has neve r had. H e a sse rt ed that sp ec ific d et er rence would notcal l f ora l onge r s e n t e n c e b e c a u s e h i s me n t a l i s s u e s ma k e i tmo r e d i ffi c u l tf o r h i m t o c o mply wi th t h e l a w. H e adde d tha t he s en t th e th r ea te ni ng l et te r to s ec ur e a tr an sferfr o m a s ta te t o a fede r alpr i so n, and he ass er ted thathe ha d no way to car ryo ut the thre at. The g o ve r nm en t as k ed f o r a s en te nc e atthe hi gh en d of t he g ui del i ne s r an g e to r un conse cuti vel y t o H oughta l i ng’ s sta te sente nce. The go ver nm ent di d not di spute the hi sto ryo f s u b s t a n c e ab u s e a n d t r o u b l e d u p b r i n g i n g, b u tn o t e d th a tH o u g h t a l i n gd i d n o ts u ffe r fr o m a m en ta l i l l ne ss an d was no t i nt o xi ca te d at th e ti m e o f th e o ffen se . T he g o ve r nm en t ca l l ed th e offense “r epuls i ve” w i th the onl y pu rpos e to “thr eat en, degra de, and to rture a j ud ge” wh o had no a pp ar ent c onn ec tio n to H oughta l i ng. The g ove rnm ent a rgued that the thr eatwas w or se than av er age bec ause H oughta l i ng capita l i zed on the j ud ge’ s p er sonaltr age dy and tar get ed th e per ce i ve d r el i g i o n a nd et hn ic i tyo fthe j udg e’ s m ur der ed f ami l y mem be r s. F i na l l y, the gov er nm ent a rgued that Houghtal i ng’ s co nti nuing offenses i n pri son prove d that he had not m ade a ny pr o g r es s to war ds r eh ab i l i ta ti o n. Lik e the go vernm ent, the distri ct c ourtacknow led ge d H ou gh ta lin g’s d i ffi cul t chi l dh oo d a nd unadd re ss e d a ng e r, me nt a l

- he a l th, a nd s ub s t a nc e - ab us e i s s ue s . T he c o ur tde c i de d, h ow ev er , to i m pose the s tatutor y m axi m um . The c ourtbas ed the m axi m um se ntence on H o ug ht al i ng ’ s r epe at ed i nv o l ve m en t wi th th e j us ti ce sy st em, e ve n whi l e i m pr i so ne d, a nd the ex tr eme c i r cumst an ce s o fthi s o ffen se . T he c o ur t no te d tha t H o ug ht al i ngha nd- pi ck ed th e vi ct i m fr o m a mon g mor e tha n 4 0 fe de r a l j ud g e s i n I l l i no i s “ s o tha t he c o ul d pr e y upon he r unim aginabl e a nd hor ri fi c per sonal tr age dy to m axi m i ze hi s i ntended har m , ” and concl ud ed th at he “p urp osefully attem p ted to i nfli ct u p on h er very serious em otional distress

. ” Th e cou rt ch ar ac te r i ze d Hought al i ng ’ s th r ea t as “ un i qu e lye x t r a o r d in a ry a nd e xt r eme in i ts c r ue l ty, ” an d concl ud ed that thi s cr i m e “ cl ear l y dem onst ra tes that he i s not now and possibl y nev erwil l beN o. 09

- 3977 Page 4

cap able of reha bilit a t io n . ” Th e cou rt beli eved that H ou gh taling “ha s becom e an ev en m ore h a r d e n e d a n d d a n g e r o u s p e r s o n ” a n d th a th i s “ h i s t o r y o fv i o l e n c e a n d h a t e ma k e s h i m a su bstant ial ri skt o the c o m m uni ty
. ” The c o ur t al l ude d t o the po l i cys ta te m en t i n the Se ntenci ng G uidel i nes that provi des fo r i ncre ase d pu ni shm ent w hen the defe nd ant’ s co nd uct w as “unusuall y heinous, cr uel, br utal, o r degra ding. ” Se e U.S
. S. G. § 5 K 2. 8 ( Ex tr em e Conduct ( Po l i cyS ta te m ent))
. T he c o ur t f o und tha t H o ug ht al i ng ’ s ac ti o ns i nt en ded to “ pr o l o ng[ th e j udg e’ s] e m o ti o nal p ain from the murde r s o fhe r mothe r a nd he r husba nd. ” The r efo r e, the cour t co ncl ud ed that the guidel i nes r ange w as i nsuffi ci ent a nd i m posed a 120- m onth pri son ter m to be ser ved afterhe c om ple tes hi s s tat e s entence
. W e r ev i ew a n abo ve - g ui del i ne s se nt en ce f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, a l l o wi ngdue d eferenc e to the d istri ct cou rt’s j ud gm en t t ha t, taken to geth er, th e statu tory sen ten cing factors j u st ify th e e x te n t t o w h ich th e cou rt w en t ab ov e th e G u id elin e ra n ge . G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U .S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ays , 593 F.3d 60 3, 60 9 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Sta tes v. Wise, 55 6 F
. 3d 62 9, 6 32

- 33 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. The di st r i ctco ur t ha s di sc r et i o n t o s en te nc e a defen dan t an yw h er e w ith in th e s ta tu to ry ran ge ba s e d on its ev alu at ion of th e s en te n c in g fa c to rs in 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) , but i f a cour t cho ose s t o go outsi de the gui del i nes r ange, i t m ust g i ve a j u st ifica tio n co m m en su ra te w ith th e d eg re e o f d ive rg en c e. G all , 552 U .S. at 4 9-5 0; U nited St at e s v. Jac ks on , 547 F.3d 786 , 792-93 (7th C ir. 2008). H oughta l i ng fi rs t co ntends thatthe dist ri ct c ourti m proper l y di sm i sse d his ar gum ents f orl eni ency base d on hi s di sadvantag ed chi l dh oo d. H e bl am es hi s tr ou b led upbri ngi ng f or h is c u rre n t le ga l p ro b lem s. B es id es st at in g t h at sp e c i f i c d et er re n c e w as u n like ly to cu rb h is conduct ( gi ven hi s di ffi cul ty conform i ng hi s be havi orto the l aw ) , however, he di d not articu late how th e ling ering effects of his ch il d hood oth erw ise w ou ld fi t in w ith oth er statu tory pu rpos es ofse ntenci ng. S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v . Brown , N o. 09

- 1028 , 20 10 W L 24860 96, at * 3- 4 ( 7th C ir. Ju ne 2 2, 2 01 0) ( di sc us singne ed to c o nne ctde fen dan t’ s ch ar ac te r i st i cs t o s en te nc i ng p u rp os es ); U nited Sta tes v. B eier, 49 0 F
. 3d 57 2, 574- 75 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “A party who f ai l s t o p ro vid e c og en t re as on s o r c re d ible em p iric al e vid en c e fo r o r a g a i n st a p ro p os ed se n te n c e is pretty m uch at the m er cy of the i nsti ncts and i ntui ti ons ofthe sente nci ng j ud ge. ”)
. The di str i ct c ou rtco n sid er ed th i s a r g u m e n t b u t w as n otp er su ad ed

. H ou gh ta lin g’s arg u m en t a b ou t h is di ffi cul tyi n obe y i ngthe l aw ce r ta i nl y di d no t r equi r e a l o wers en te nc e an d c al l s to min d the f act that one pu rpos e o fse ntenci ng under s ecti on 3 553( a) i s t o p ro te c t the publ i c by i ncapaci tat i ng the defendant. H oughta l i ng anal ogi zes hi s s i tuati on t o one ofa perso n w i th a m ental i l l ness, w hi ch can supp or t a l ower s entence i fthe i l l ness affecte d the offender’ s j ud gm ent, m aking hi m l ess o bj ec ti ve l y c ul pab l e an d s ug g es ting th at wi th tr ea tment th e o ffen der ’ s r i sko fr ec i di vi sm an d n ee d for d et er re n c e a re red u c ed

. Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. M ir anda , 505 F.3d 785 , 792-93 (7th C ir.N o. 09

- 3977 Page 5

20 07 )
. Ho ug ht al i ng, ho wev er, di sc l ai m ed ha vinga ment al il lness, a nd he s ho wed no i ncl i nati on t o see k t re atm ent forsubst ance abuse orm entalheal th i fhe r ecei ved a shor ter s e n t e n c e . Wi th o u ts o me a s s u r a n c e t h a tHo u g h t a l i n g ’ s i s s u e s w o u l d b e i mp r o v e d b y th e t i me h e w ill b e r e lea se d , th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otab u se its d isc re tio n in c on c lu d in g t h at h is di ffi cul tyc o nf o r m i nghi s be ha vi o r t o the l aw p o i nt ed to war d i nc apa ci ta tinghi m f o r a s l o ng as possibl e. H oughta l i ng’ s o therbas i s forl eni ency – hi s inabi l i ty to ca rry o u t the thr eat– i s a l so unp er suasi ve. He conte nd s that the l ett erwas j ust a n i dle threatand thathe pos ed no a ctual d an g e r t o t h e jud ge . B u t t h e s ta tu te cr im in aliz es th re at s, n otat te m p ts , sin c e t h e re c ip ien t is unli kely t o know w hethera thre at i s i dle o r re al i sti c. Although the dist ri ct c ourtco uld have w ei ghed differ entl y thi s cl ai m ed i nabi l i ty to act, the cour t w as not com pel l ed to do. W hether orn ot the authorof the threa t has any abi l i ty to car ryo ut the thre at, “the thr eati tse l fcause s em oti onalturm oi l in the li ves ofthose thre ate ned, incl ud i ng thei r f am i l i es, and i s, ther ef or e, i tse l fa cri m e. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Aus t ad, 519 F.3d 431 , 436 n.6 (8th C ir. 2008). H oughta l i ng next ar gues that the r eas ons the di str i ct c ourtga ve w er e inadequ ate to su ppo r t su cha l ar g e i nc r ea se abo ve the g ui del i ne r an g e. H e co nt en ds th at th e na tu r e o fthe thre at w as al re ady i nherenti n the offense, and so , he a sse rt s, the dis tr i ct c ourthad no nee d to d ev iat e fro m th e ra n ge on th at b as is. A n d alt h ou gh h e d oe s no t con te st th e s er iou sn es s o f h is cri m i nal hi sto ry, H oughta l i ng ar gues that a s entence atthe statu to ry m ax i m um was unreas onabl y har sh. W e di sag re e. F i r st, the di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t er r i n fi ndi ngtha t th e th r ea t was e spe ci al l y e g r eg i o us because H oughta l i ng ta rg ete d the j ud ge because o fher p er so n al t ra gedy. Houghtal i ng had neverhad a case bef or e her, and the re cor d does no t r eve alany possibl e co nnecti on be tw een them o therthan tha tH oughta l i ng f ol l ows the t eachi ngs o fano therwh i te suprem aci st w ho a l so ta rg et ed h er . B y ta rg et in g su c h a v ict im an d lac in g t h e t h re at w ith vile rac istan d an ti-S em itic h at re d , H ou gh ta lin g ea rn ed t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n t o tr ea t h is c rim e a s u n u su ally cr u el. Se c on d , w e a gr ee th at H ou gh ta lin g’s cr im in al h ist or y a n d co n tin u in g off en se s w h ile im p ris on ed d em on st ra te a lac k of re h ab ilita tiv e p ro m ise
. E ve n t h ou gh H ou gh ta lin g w as on ly 26 yea rs o l d at the ti m e o fthe offense, he was al re ady i n the hi ghestcr i m i nal hi sto rycat ego ry, eve n w i thout counti ng the 7 cri m es he had com m i tte d bef or e the ag e of18
. The ne ed to pro tect the publ i c was obv i ous. The need f ori ncapaci tat i on has supporte d si gni fi cant devi ati ons f ro m the guidel i nes ra nge i n si m i l arthr eat eni ng- com m unica ti ons case s. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pin s on , 542 F. 3d 822, 83 3- 39 ( 10th Cir
. 20 08) ( affi rm i ng co nsecuti ve m axi m um se ntences o n allthr ee counts re l ati ng to thr eat s t o Pres i dent, j uror, and j ud ge, total i ng 240 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, 135 m onths abov e the gui del i ne ra nge, because of the ne ed to pro tectthe pu bl i c fro m the 21- ye ar -old d efe n d an t b as ed on h is v iole n t y ou th ); Aus t ad, 519 F. 3d at 434- 36 ( affi rm i ng 84

- m onthN o. 09

- 3977 Page 6

sente nce, 38 m onths abov e the gui del i ne r ange, f orm ai l i ng thr eat eni ng l ett er to federa l j ud ge b ec au se of d efe n d an t’s ex te n siv e d isc ip lin ar y re c or d in p ris on an d likelih oo d th at h e w ou ld c on tin u e t o th re at en o th er m em b er s of so c iet y). T h e n ee d to inc ap ac ita te H ou gh ta lin g c ou ld al one be a suffi ci ent r eas on t o i m pose a s entence atthe sta tutor y m axi m um . W hen com bi ned wi ththe ext r eme cr ue l tyofthe offen se a nd the l ac ko fa ny r ea so n t o b el i ev e th atthe de fen dan t i s r ecepti ve to tr eat m ent, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s entence i s r eas onabl e. AF F I RMED.