NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0482n.06 No. 08-3287 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. MI CHAEL

SOGAN, De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E N OR THE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B e fo re : KE I TH , B OG GS, a nd MCK EA GU E, Cir c uit

Judg e s. PER C URI AM. De fe nd a nt- Appellant M ic ha e l So g a n ( “ Sog a n” ) r ob be d th re e ba nk s in tw o d a y s in

e a rl y Au g us t of 20 07 . H e fa c ili ta te d th e c ri me s in tw o way s. F ir st, Sog a n de c lare d tha t the te lle rs wo uld only “g o home” upon f

ollowing his direc tions. S econd, he place d a hand on his wa ist to i mply that h e w a s c a r

r yi n g a w e a p o n . S o g a n u l t i m a t e l y p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o t h r e e c o u n t s o f

u n a r m e d b a n k r o b b e r y, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). At sentenc ing, the district court app l i ed the two- level enhanc ement for threats of death under U.S.S .G. § 2B3.1( b)(2) (F ). Beca use the district cour

t did not

err in sentencing Soga

n, we AF F IRM

. I. The fa cts g iving r ise to Defe ndant’s unar med robbe ry

charges ar e undisputed. At approximately

10:30 a.m. on Aug ust 4, 2007, Soga n approa ched the counter of a Dollar B ank tellerNo.08-3287

United States v. Sogan

2 in Brookly

n, Ohi o . Wit h one hand by his waist, he told her to “g ive [him ] m oney .” The teller, fea ring that Soga

n was a rmed, ha nded him money

and bait bills in the amount of $1,000 until S og an

sa id, “ e no ug h. ” Sog a n th e n f le d. A witne ss wit

hin the ba nk ob se rv e d a

blu e ve hic le a

br up tly pu ll out of a parking space and near ly collide with another

vehicle, just moments afte r Sog an ra n outside. Approxim ately

five hours la ter, Sog an robbe d a U.S. Ba nk located in Cleveland, Ohio in a simil ar ma

nner. He ag ain place d a hand on his w aist, decla ring , “I am only g oing to a sk this once and once only

. . . Do y ou want to g o home tonight? I f y ou do, g ive me y our money .” As be fore , the teller ha

nded him both bait bills and mone y worth appr ox imately

$649. As befor e, Sog an fle d. A witness outside the bank obse rved a man run fr om the bui lding before jumping int o the bac kseat of a blu e ve hic le , wh ic h pu lle d of f. Th e te lle r la te r re po rt e d that a s a re su lt o f t

he ro bb e ry

sh e fe lt

e mot ion a lly ra

pe d, a nd that the inc ide nt ro bb e d he r of pa rt of he r lif

e . She ind ic a te d th a t sh e no t on ly fea red f or her life during the incident, but bec ame pa ranoid at work there afte r. On Aug ust 6, 2007 at approximately 2:14 p.m., Sogan r obbed a Cha se B ank in L orain, Ohio. Ac c or din g to the vic tim te lle r, De fe nd a nt ap pr oa c he d he r co un te r a nd de mand e d th a t sh e g ive him fifty and twenty -dollar bills, “or y ou won’t g o home tonight.” When the teller asked Soga n to repe at what he ha d said, he replied that if she fa iled to follow directions, she wouldn’ t “g o[] home.” Af ter the teller ha

nded De fenda

nt approxim ately

$2,059 from her

draw er, D efe ndant left the ba nk. U p o n h i s a r

r e s t o n A u g u s t 8 , 2 0 0 7 , d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d t o h a v i n g r o b b e d a l l t h r e e b a n k s . In particula r, he a dmitted to: (1) having stolen a used, blue, f our-door Chry sler fr om a used-c ar lot; (2) having robbed Dollar Bank on the m orning of either Aug ust 3 or 4, 2007; (3) dr inking a nd g etting high a fter that first robber y ; (4) luring his girlf

riend’s ne phew to dr ive him to a U .S. Bank br anch,No.08-3287

United States v. Sogan

3 which he the n robbed; a

nd (5) abandoning the s tolen vehicle in a parking lot after using it to travel to and flee from Chase B ank, fr om which he stole in excess of $2,000. II. On Aug ust 29, 2007, a fe dera l gr and jury in the Norther

n District of Ohio re turned a three

count indictment char g ing D efe ndant with unarme d robber y . See 18 U. S.C. § 2 11 3( a ). Pur su a nt t o a plea ag ree ment, Soga

n pleade d g uilty

to all counts on Fe bruar

y 5, 2008. On Fe bruar

y 19, 2008, he appe are d befor e the district cour t for sente ncing

. Th e Pr e se nte nc e I nv e sti g a tio n Re po rt (“ PSR” ) p re pa

re d f or se nte nc ingc a lc ulate d a

ba se offense leve l of 20 for una rmed robbe ry . See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a); U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1. The court applied on e t wo -l ev el en h an ce m en tb ec au s e D ef en d an ts t o l e p ro p er t y

fr o m a f i n an ci al i n s t i tu tion and

a s e c o n d t w o - l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n t b e c a u s e h e i s s u e d a d e a t h t h r e a td u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f

t h e r o b b e r

y, elevating De fenda

nt’s offe nse l evel to 24. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1( b)(1) , (b)( 2)(F ). The court then a pplied a thre e-le vel enha

nceme nt for his c onviction on multipl e counts, U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2, befor e apply ing a thre e-le vel re duction for acce ptance of responsibili ty

. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. After de termining that the tota l o f

f e n s e le v e l w a s 2 4 a n d th e c r im in a l h is to r y c a te g o r y w a s V I , th e c o u rt c a lc u la ted a Guidelines ra

ng e of 100 to 125 months. The c ourt then imposed a 112- month sentence followed by three y ear s of supervise d rele ase. During the sentenc ing hear ing, defe ndant objected to the PSR ’s re commendation of atwolevel enha nceme nt for his threatening statements. The district court denied his objection, noting that [A] couple of

these [tellers], their lives have been turned around a nd they have to g et medication and se e socia l worker s or psy cholog ists or psy chiatrist s . . . beca use of y our m isc ondu ct. Th at’ s one of the re a so ns that . . . I

do n’ t se e ho w a

ny on e c ou ldNo.08-3287

United States v. Sogan

Appellant conc edes that he “ha d his hand on his waist” during the U.S. Ba nk robber y . 1 4 ta ke the c omm e nts a ny oth e r wa y tha n the re may be so me ph y sic a l dan g e r t hat w ou ld be put on them if they

didn’t cooper ate. Wheth er these fa cts war rant a sentenc e enha

nceme nt pursuant to § 2B3.1( b)(2) (F ) is a leg al conclusion subject to de novo revie w. Un ite d S tat es v . W inb us h , 296 F.3d 442, 443 ( 6th Cir. 2002) (c i t i n g Un ite d S

tat es v . A le

x an de r, 88 F.3d 427, 428 ( 6th Cir. 1996)).

III

. Pursuant to the 1997 amen dments to §2B3.1(b) (2)( F) , death thre ats may be express or im plied. W inbush, 296 F.3d at 443. This court has re peate dly held that notes conta ining the statement, “I have a g un,” qualify for the enhanc ement for threa ts. Id. The question now bef ore the court is whethe r a ge sture im ply ing gun possession trig g ers the two-leve l enhanc ement for threa t of death, a s do oral and w ritten statements that communicate g un possession. Appellant ar g ues that he did not issue a thre at of de ath within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2B 3. 1. He fi rs t con te nd s tha t no we a po n wa s d isp la

y e d o r s ug g e ste d. Ho we ve r, the Sixth C ir c uit 1 has held that the gun need not be shown for purposes of applying this e nhance ment. W inb us h , 296 F .3 d a t 44 3 ( ho ldi ng that pr e se nti ng a no te to a te lle r statin g that “ Ihave a g un ” is a thr e a t of de a th wh e the r o r n ot t

he de fe nd a nt d isp lay e d th e we a po n) ; ac c or

d United States v. J

ennings , 439 F.3d 604, 610-11 (9th Cir. 2006) (apply ing the threa t-of-de ath enhanceme nt to a defenda nt who announce s but do e s n ot s ho w a

g un , a nd do e s n ot t hr e a te n to us e it) ; United States v. Murphy , 306 F.3d 1087, 1089 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that an unarmed defendant who decla red, “I have a gun,” made a thre at of deat h wi th in th e me ani ng of t he en han cem ent ). A l s o , t he co mm ent s re feren cin g §2B3. 1(b )(2 )(F)No.08-3287

United States v. Sogan

5 make c lear

that non-ver

bal conduc t can wa

rra nt the enhanc ement. B y way of example, the comments cite “ an ora l or written dema nd using w ords such a s . . . ‘Give me y our money or else’ (whe re the defe ndant dra

ws his hand across his throat in a slashing motion)[ .]” U.S.S .G. § 2B 3.1, cmt. n. 6. Second, Appe llant notes that eac h confr ontation was “ brief” and that the Gove rnment fa iled to p r o v e th a t So g a n in te n d e d to d o a n y o n e a n y h a r m. T h is a r g u me n t, w h ic h a d dr e s ses Soga n’s

su bje c tiv e state of

min d, is w ho lly

ir re le va nt t o th e g ov e rn ingle g a l st and ard . T he c omm e nts to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1 not e that oral or written st atements, acts, g estures, or some combination of these ,

c a n c on sti tut e a

thr e a t of de a th. U. S.S. G. § 2 B 3. 1, c mt. n. 6. Th e c omm e nts c on tin ue : [T] he def endant doe s not have to sta te expressly his intent to ki ll the victim in order for the enha

nceme nt to apply . For

example, an ora l or written dema nd using w ords su c h a s . . . “ Gi ve me y our m on e y or e lse (w he re the de fe nd a nt d ra ws his ha nd a c ro ss his thr oat in a sla sh ing mot ion ), ” or “ Gi ve me the mon e y or y ou are d ead” w ould c on sti tut e a

thr e a t of de a th. Th e c ourt

sh ou ld con si de r t

hat th e int e nt o f t

his pr ov isi on is t o p ro vid e a n inc re a se d of fe ns e le ve l fo r c a se s in wh ic h the of fe nd e r( s) eng ag ed in conduc t that would instil l in a re asonable person, who is a victim of the offe nse, a f

ear of death. U.S.S.G § 2B3.1, cmt. n. 6. Th e sta nd a rd he re is o bje c tiv e , a

nd S ogan’s c on du c t w e ll m e e ts i t. S og a n’ s g e sturi ng is analog ous to the comments’ re fer ence to drawing a fi n ger ac ro ss one’s throa t. I n both case s, the implication is cle ar: follow my direc tion or fac e phy sically g rave conseque nces. Acc ording ly , the

c omb inatio n of Sog a n’ s state me nts a nd a c tio ns c ou ld “ ins til l in a re a so na ble pe rs on , w ho is a

vic tim of the off ense, a fea r of death.” § 2B3.1, cmt. n. 6. Def endant told two tellers that they would not

ma ke it h ome un le ss t

he y ha nd e d him larg e su ms of mon e y . He su g g e sti ve ly pla c e d his ha nd by hisNo.08-3287

United States v. Sogan

One ba nk teller, when asked whether she interpre ted S og an’s behavior as a threat of death, 2 “re sponded with a de finitive ‘Oh, y es.’” 6 waist as he utter ed these words, which cause d the t ellers to believe that he could enfor ce the threat wi th a weap on . Bot h the U. S. B a nk a nd Cha se B a

nk te lle rs int e rp re te d So g a n’ s st a te me nts a s a threat of death. One indicated that she fe are d for he r life. The other repor ted that the incident wa s 2

“ tr a umatic be c a

us e sh e ha d no way of kn ow ingif he ha d a g un a nd

. . . w ou ld s ho ot. ” A r e a so na ble victim forc efully order ed to turn over her drawer ’s m oney to a bank robber would experience a fe ar of death, having conclude d that Soga n may be ca rry ing a wea pon. Sogan’s de c isi on

to h old his ha nd by his wa ist imp lie d h is p os se ssi on

of a we a po n. Hi s threatening stat em en t s , coupled with this telling g esture, w arr anted the a pplication of a two- level

e nh a nc e me nt f

or makin g a thr e a t of de a th. I nd e e d, “ [t]he on ly purp os e fo r the c on du c t c ou ple d w ith the command is to forc e the victim, throug h fea r of a deadly wea

pon, to capitulate.” United States v. Martinez , 602 F.3d 1156, 1159 ( 10th Cir. 2010). Soga n ’s s t atements and behavior c onstitut e a threat of death for purpose s of the § 2B 3.1 enhanc ement. IV. The district cour

t also did not err by declining to g rant Sog an a dow nwar d varia nce on the basis of his abusive c hildhood and addictions. Soga n argues that he w as entitled to a downward varia nce; the G overnme nt offer s no resp o nse. We revie w the district cour t's se ntencing deter mination for re asonable ness, Un ite d S tat es v . Th om as , 498 F.3d 336, 339 (6th Cir. 2007), under a “defe rential abuse-of- discretion standa rd.” Ga ll v . U

nit e d S tat es, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Soga n first argues that the district cour t failed to a ddress his a

busive childhood. Whil e we “re cog nize twoNo.08-3287

United States v. Sogan

7 paths by which a se ntence r may

rely on a def endant' s family

circ umstances to arri v e at a se ntence below th e re co mmended ra ng e: (1) G uidelines-base d depar tures . . . and ( 2) var iance s from the advisory rang e in lig ht of the § 3553(a ) fa ctors,” Un ite d S tat es v . E lli ot, 32 7 F. Ap p' x 540 , 5 46 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Blue, 557 F.3d 682, 687 ( 6th Cir. 2009)), the cour t need not “explicitly state that it ha s considere d and re jected e ach of

defe ndant’s ar g uments.” United States

v . B e rry , 5 65 F .3 d 3 32 , 3 40 -4 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 9) . I t f

oll ow s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s deci sion n ot t o expli citly addre ss Sogan’ s upbring ing w as not an a buse of discr etion. The c ourt did acknow ledg e Sog an’s history of abuse of al co h o l an d drug s, howeve r, and eng ag ed him in a colloquy about his attempts at sobriety . The c o u rt d eter mined that rathe r than mit ig a tin g Sog a n’ s c ri me , h is d ru g de pe nd e nc e may

have a g g ra

vate d it . T he c ourt

no te d: [P ]art of the self- destruction has to do with it’s all about Michae l and using drug s or using a lcohol, and then y ou take y our fr ustrations out in doing other thing s. One of the things . . . [is that] y our conduct has a ve ry bad ef fec t on a lot of other pe ople. .

. . Th e se pe op le in the ba

nk or in t he Gi a nt E a g le , . . . . a

c ou ple of tho se pe op le , th e ir lives have been turne d around a nd they have to g et medication or see soc ial worke rs or psy cholog ists . . . . Th is d e te rm inatio n w a s w ith in t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis c re tio n, a nd do e s n ot c on sti tut e a n a

bu se of su ch

. Fu rt her, the district court prope rly discussed and c onsidered the § 3553(a) fac tors. The district court there fore did not err by declining to vary

below Sog an’s a dvisory

g uidelines rang e. V. For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM Soga n’s conviction and se ntence

.