Opinion ID: 3030631
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Six-Level Sentence Enhancement

Text: Under section 2A6.1(b)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the sentencing court may enhance the base offense level for threatening communications by six levels [i]f the offense involved any conduct evidencing an intent to carry out such threat. In this case, the district court found that Rose's conduct evidenced his intent to carry out his threats to murder Fischer's children. Rose obtained Fischer's home address and telephone number, information that Fischer did not provide to him. Rose also sought and obtained driving directions and a map with a route leading directly to Fischer's residence. Additionally, Rose carried out other threats he made to Fischer, including posting pornographic and detailed information about Fischer's children on sexually-explicit web sites and sending letters to Fischer's neighbors. Together, according to the district court, these actions evidenced an intent to carry out his threats. We review the district court's finding of facts for clear error and its application of the guidelines to the facts de novo, giving due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines. United States v. Saknikent, 30 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir. 1994). After a thorough review of the record, we determine that the district 3 The web sites encouraged men to rape Fischer's children. Fischer's family received numerous phone calls from men from around the country and the world in response to the web site postings about the Fischer children. -3- court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its application of section 2A6.1(b)(1) to the facts was proper. In support of his argument that the six-level enhancement was inappropriate, Rose cites United States v. Goynes, 175 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1999). In that case, the defendant, while in prison, sent threatening letters to members of the Amarillo, Texas, legal community. The court determined that the letters alone, without an overt act, did not evidence an intent to carry out the threat. The court in Goynes stated the following: Holding that threats are enough to support a § 2A6.1(b)(1) enhancement would contradict the plain language of the Guideline, which authorizes an enhancement where the offense involves conduct evidencing an intent to carry out the threats. Therefore, this Circuit adopts the majority view [of other Circuit Courts] requiring some form of overt act to sustain a § 2A6.1(b)(1) enhancement. Goynes, 175 F.3d at 355. The present case is distinguishable because Rose carried out overt acts in furtherance of his threats by calling the Fischer home, posting information about Fischer's children on pornographic web sites, sending letters to Fischer's neighbors, and finding Fischer's address, determining its location and obtaining directions to the site. The six-level enhancement was, therefore, appropriate.