Opinion ID: 3012330
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Guideline Reduction

Text: Cothran argues that if S 2A6.1 is applicable, he is entitled to a four-level reduction because his offense involved a single instance evidencing little or no deliberation. U.S. 8 SENTENCING GUIDELINES M ANUAL, S 2A6.1(b)(4) (2000). The District Court disagreed, stating that, I do not find that it was one single episode and I find the conduct existed over the two different episodes and over a period of hours and that there was some serious deliberation and thought. . . in reference to both of these conversations and both of these activities. We review the District Court’s refusal to decrease Cothran’s criminal level for clear error. United States v. Green, 25 F.3d 206, 210-11 (3d Cir. 1994). Cothran argues that his offense was a single episode and that he is thus entitled to the reduction. Assuming arguendo that the offense was a single episode, Cothran would still not ipso facto be entitled to the reduction. For the reduction to be applicable, Cothran’s single episode would also have to evidence[ ] little or no deliberation. U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL, S 2A6.1(b)(4) (2000). The District Court clearly did not err in finding that Cothran seriously deliberated before acting. Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Richard Marx testified that Cothran told him that he wanted to get a reaction from a U.S. Air reservation agent, and that he knew that a good terrorist would speak of explosives to accomplish that goal. Such a statement demonstrates sufficient deliberation for the District Court’s decision to refuse a downward departure from the guideline. The court’s decision to do so was not clear error.