Opinion ID: 3063568
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Single Instance of Conduct

Text: The Eleventh Circuit has not articulated a formulaic definition of a “single instance” under § 2A6.1(b)(5). However, the Circuit is not without the benefit of instructive jurisprudence, and that jurisprudence makes clear that identifying “a single instance” of threat is a heavily fact-dependent process. The Ninth Circuit has held that a single threat and “a single instance” are not synonymous but that conduct involving several threats may constitute a “single instance” within the meaning of § 2A6.1(b)(5). United States v. Sanders, 41 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir. 1994). The Sanders court elaborated on the distinction, 2 The district judge stated, in discussing the § 2A6.1(b)(5) enhancement, “I think it’s not necessarily a separate instance of a threat, but I think it can be. And I’m not really sure. I kind of gave [Appellant] the benefit of the doubt.” (R69, p. 18.) Also, in sustaining Appellant’s objection to a two-level sentencing increase that was to be applied only if Appellant made two or more threats, the Court characterized Appellant’s behavior as one threat made to the 911 dispatcher and merely repeated to Officer Peavy and Special Agent Kull. (Id. at 15–16; see also id. at 2.) 5 explaining that several threats made as part of a single scheme or purpose would qualify as “a single instance,” whereas multiple threats toward different targets based on distinct motivations would not. Id. The Eighth Circuit has held that threats can be ineligible for a single-instance classification when they are made through different media intended for separate audiences. United States v. Humphreys, 352 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir. 2003). In Humphreys, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not commit clear error in finding that a defendant’s statements threatening the President were not a “single instance” because the defendant made threats by fax, in a chat room, and in person, communicating with three different people at different times, and the threats were not the result of a singular impulse. Id. As these cases illustrate, factual findings as to the interrelated nature of separate threats are a crucial factor in determining whether the threats constitute a single instance, or multiple instances. Also instructive is the Eleventh Circuit opinion in United States v. Scott, 441 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006). In Scott, the Eleventh Circuit construed § 2A6.1(b)(1) of the Guidelines, which calls for a six-level offense increase when a defendant acts in a manner evidencing his intent to carry out the threat. The court found the increase applicable only when the conduct cited for the increase occurred prior to or during the offense, not once the defendant is in custody. Id. 6 at 1329. Both § 2A6.1(b)(1) and § 2A6.1(b)(5) involve offense-level adjustments based on conduct comprising “the offense,” and thus, the Scott court’s clarification of which acts constitute “the offense” in § 2A6.1(b)(1) is instructive in the interpretation of § 2A6.1(b)(5) here. In this case, Appellant made a single 911 phone call threatening to kill the President, and then he repeated the threat to the officer dispatched to his location and repeated it again while being questioned by the Secret Service Agent at the Sheriff’s Office. The Government argues that Appellant’s statements to the 911 dispatcher, the investigating police officer, and the questioning agent all qualify as separate instances. However, in none of Appellant’s statements did the stated victim or ultimate intention vary, and all of the remarks were made in the same course of dealings with law enforcement over a few hours. Therefore, applying the reasoning of the court in Scott, this Court finds that Appellant’s threats are best construed as part of a “single instance.”