Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Allen WALTERS, also known as Michael Genovese, also known as Robert Genovese, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-01
Citations: 248 F. App'x 762
Docket Number: No. 06-2765
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Allen WALTERS, also known as Michael Genovese, also known as Robert Genovese, Appellant.
Judges: Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 248
Pages: 762–762

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Allen WALTERS, also known as Michael Genovese, also known as Robert Genovese, Appellant.
No. 06-2765.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2007.
Filed: Oct. 1, 2007.
Robert Allen Walters, Sioux Falls, SD, pro se.
Patrick M. Schroeder, Brende & Schroeder, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellant.
Jeffrey C. Clapper, Mark Edward Salter, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellee.
Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Allen Walters appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to mailing a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). He argues the district court erred in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(2) upon determining that the offense involved more than two threats. Specifically, he challenges the district court's finding that the letters in question were objectively threatening.
We review the district court's application of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Amsden, 213 F.3d 1014, 1015 (8th Cir.2000). We agree with the district court's application of section 2A6.1(b)(2), because the letters were substantially and directly related to the offense conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1, comment, (n.l) (in determining whether enhancement should apply, court should consider conduct that is "substantially and directly connected to the offense, under the facts of the case taken as a whole"). We also conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding the letters objectively threatening, because we believe that unambiguous language in the letters would lead any reasonable person familiar with the context to perceive the letters as threatening. See United States v. Bellrichard, 994 F.2d 1318, 1323-24 (8th Cir.1993) (standard is whether "a reasonable recipient, familiar with the context of the communication, would interpret it as a threat"; communications must be viewed both in "textual context and also in the context of the totality of the circumstances in which the communication was made").
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Charles B. Kommann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.