United States v. Varnell ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
    Appellate Case: 20-6040      Document: 010110617937         United
    Date Filed:  States CourtPage:
    12/13/2021    of Appeals
    1
    Tenth Circuit
    December 13, 2021
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Christopher M. Wolpert
    Clerk of Court
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,                          No. 20-6040
    v.                                             (D.C. No. 5:17-CR-00239-D-1)
    JERRY DRAKE VARNELL,                                    (W. D. Okla.)
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    I. Introduction
    In 2018, a federal grand jury returned a superceding indictment charging
    Defendant-Appellant, Jerry Drake Varnell, with maliciously attempting to destroy
    property used in and affecting interstate commerce, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i), and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against any person
    and property within the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a. Varnell
    moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds the government’s conduct during the
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
    however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
    Cir. R. 32.1.
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021      Page: 2
    investigation was so outrageous the government was constitutionally barred from
    prosecuting the offenses. The district court denied the motion to dismiss the
    charges. After Varnell was convicted, the court also denied his motion for
    judgment of acquittal. Varnell was sentenced to serve a 300-month term of
    imprisonment, a downward variance from the guidelines advisory range of life
    imprisonment. The district court arrived at this sentence by applying the twelve-
    level terrorism enhancement set out in § 3A1.4(a) of the United States Sentencing
    Guidelines, an enhancement to which Varnell objected.
    In this appeal, Varnell argues the district court erred in concluding the
    government did not engage in outrageous conduct. He also challenges application
    of the terrorism enhancement. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    , we affirm the rulings of the district court.
    II. Background
    In 2015, Varnell began an online friendship with an individual named Brent
    Elisens. The two initially shared a common interest in computers and computer
    programming. They later began using Facebook’s group-messaging function to
    discuss political and social issues with other individuals. 1 At one point, the group
    made plans to obtain land and establish a small society free of capitalism. Elisens
    told Varnell he was not interested in the group’s plans and intended to go “off
    1
    After a group discussion about the possibility the government could
    monitor their online conversations, Varnell and Elisens began communicating
    through a mobile application called TextLock, which encrypted their messages.
    -2-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040    Document: 010110617937      Date Filed: 12/13/2021    Page: 3
    grid” and leave all his possessions behind. Varnell agreed the group was naive
    and expressed his belief that the United States was headed for civil war. Varnell
    told Elisens he intended to form his own “team” and go after government officials
    when that happened. Varnell also told Elisens he knew enough about chemistry
    to make a bomb and stated: “It’s time to bomb some fucking banks.” Shortly
    before Elisens left Oklahoma, Varnell sent him an encrypted message stating: “I
    think I’m going to go with what the [Oklahoma City] bomber used, diesel and
    anhydrous ammonia. I might have to make a distillery to process some stuff, but
    that’s a solid recipe.”
    When Elisens returned to Oklahoma a few months later, he was imprisoned
    in the county jail for violating the terms of his supervised release. While in jail,
    Elisens approached law enforcement about Varnell’s plans to build and detonate a
    bomb. In January 2017, Elisens met with FBI agents and provided details about
    his online conversations with Varnell. He later provided the FBI with copies of
    text messages he had received from Varnell earlier in the year. Based on the
    messages shared by Elisens, the FBI opened an investigation and retained Elisens
    as a paid informant.
    When Elisens was released from incarceration in March 2017, he
    reestablished contact with Varnell, this time in his capacity as an informant for
    the FBI. Elisens and Varnell continued their online discussions and the two met
    in person several times. Elisens recorded the in-person conversations. Among
    -3-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021   Page: 4
    other things, the two briefly discussed Varnell’s past plan to put a “team”
    together. They also discussed the type of bomb Varnell was capable of building.
    Elisens offered to introduce Varnell to an individual with bomb-making
    knowledge whom he referred to as “the Professor.” The Professor was actually an
    undercover FBI agent named Mark Williams. Varnell and Elisens met with Agent
    Williams in early June. Varnell and Williams discussed types of explosives,
    supplies, and potential targets. At two points in the conversation, Williams told
    Varnell that he could back out of the plans but Varnell did not express any
    hesitation in moving forward.
    Varnell met with Williams again on June 26, 2017. The two discussed
    obtaining untraceable mobile phones, barrels into which they would put
    ammonium nitrate, and a vehicle into which they would load the barrels. They
    also discussed potential targets, with Varnell telling Williams he believed the best
    targets were located in Texas. Williams expressed logistical concerns about
    choosing a location too far away. After the meeting, Williams contacted Varnell
    and suggested they scout potential targets. When Williams picked up Varnell
    from his residence on July 13, 2017, Varnell stated he wanted to drive to
    Amarillo, Texas. At trial, Williams testified he was concerned by Varnell’s
    request because the FBI surveillance plan did not include the possibility of a trip
    to Amarillo. Williams told Varnell he was under the impression the plan was to
    go to the BancFirst building in Oklahoma City. According to Williams, Varnell
    -4-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021    Page: 5
    agreed with that suggestion and expressed no surprise when he mentioned the
    BancFirst building. After they scouted the BancFirst building, Varnell described
    it as “a good spot” because there was an alleyway adjacent to the building where
    they could park the vehicle containing the bomb. At one point during the
    scouting trip, Williams again asked Varnell if he still wanted to go through with
    the plan. Varnell responded, “Fuck, yes.”
    As the date approached to construct the bomb, Varnell failed to complete
    several of the tasks assigned to him. Specifically, he was unable to secure a
    vehicle in which to deliver the bomb. Elisens stepped in and purchased a van,
    falsely telling Varnell he obtained the van from a person who owed him a favor.
    Varnell also failed to obtain gloves, tape, and barrels in which to put the
    ammonium nitrate. Accordingly, Williams drove Varnell to a store where Varnell
    purchased gloves and electrical tape with money Williams gave him. Williams
    and Varnell then drove to a storage locker where they used materials provided by
    the government to construct a bomb. Varnell was unaware the bomb was inert.
    Williams testified that Varnell was familiar with the process, participated in the
    construction, and was able to identify nearly all of the components of the bomb.
    After constructing the bomb, Varnell and Williams drove the van into the storage
    facility lot and placed the bomb inside the van.
    On the morning of August 12, 2017, Varnell drove the van containing the
    inert bomb to Oklahoma City. Williams followed him in a separate vehicle.
    -5-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937      Date Filed: 12/13/2021     Page: 6
    When Varnell arrived at the BancFirst building he was unable to pull into the
    alleyway because it was blocked by a private security vehicle. Varnell circled the
    area until the vehicle left. He then pulled into the alley and parked the van. After
    arming the bomb, Varnell exited the van and got into Williams’s truck. Williams
    drove to an area previously selected by the FBI and parked the truck. Varnell
    then attempted to detonate the bomb three times by using a mobile phone. After
    FBI bomb technicians confirmed that Varnell had correctly armed the bomb,
    agents approached Williams’s truck and arrested Varnell.
    Varnell was charged in a superceding indictment with maliciously
    attempting to destroy property used in and affecting interstate commerce, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i), and attempting to use a weapon of mass
    destruction against any person and property within the United States, in violation
    of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a. A week before trial, Varnell moved to dismiss the
    superseding indictment, alleging outrageous government conduct. See United
    States v. Wagner, 
    951 F.3d 1232
    , 1253 (10th Cir. 2020) (“When the government’s
    conduct during an investigation is sufficiently outrageous, the courts will not
    allow the government to prosecute offenses developed through that conduct
    because [doing so] would offend the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
    Amendment.” (quotation omitted)). The district court reserved ruling on
    Varnell’s motion until the close of the government’s case-in-chief. The court
    thereafter denied the motion from the bench. After the jury convicted Varnell of
    -6-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021     Page: 7
    both counts, the district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.
    Varnell was sentenced to serve a total term of 300 months’ imprisonment. The
    district court calculated this sentence by applying the twelve-level terrorism
    enhancement set out in § 3A1.4(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court,
    however, also varied downward from the advisory guidelines range of life
    imprisonment.
    In this appeal, Varnell challenges the district court’s refusal to dismiss the
    indictment based on outrageous government conduct. He also asserts the district
    court erred in applying the terrorism enhancement.
    III. Discussion
    A. Outrageous Government Conduct
    This court “review[s] the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for
    outrageous government conduct de novo.” Wagner, 951 F.3d at 1253. “To prove
    outrageous government conduct, the defendant must show ‘either (1) excessive
    government involvement in the creation of the crime, or (2) significant
    governmental coercion to induce the crime.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Dyke,
    
    718 F.3d 1282
    , 1288 (10th Cir. 2013)). In United States v. Russell, the Supreme
    Court suggested that a defense based on outrageous government conduct may be
    applicable when the “conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due
    process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial
    processes to obtain a conviction.” 
    411 U.S. 423
    , 431-32 (1973). To violate due
    -7-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040    Document: 010110617937        Date Filed: 12/13/2021       Page: 8
    process principles, however, the government’s conduct must “shock[] . . . the
    universal sense of justice.” 
    Id. at 432
     (quotation omitted). In United States v.
    Dyke, this court described the defense as “something of a curiosity” and noted a
    plurality of the Supreme Court has backpedaled from the statements the Court
    made in Russell, suggesting the remedy for outrageous government conduct “lies
    ‘not in freeing the equally culpable defendant, but in prosecuting the police under
    the applicable provisions of state or federal law.’” 718 F.3d at 1285 (quoting
    Hampton v. United States, 
    425 U.S. 484
    , 490 (1976)). In Dyke, we declined to
    decide whether the defense is still viable in this circuit, but noted it has never
    been applied by this court to strike down a conviction. Id. at 1287-88. As in
    Dyke, it is unnecessary to determine whether the defense of outrageous
    government conduct is available to defendants in this circuit because no such
    conduct occurred in this matter.
    This court has summarized “guiding principles” applicable to the defense
    of outrageous government conduct as including (1) whether the government
    “engineers and directs the criminal enterprise from start to finish,” and (2) “the
    past and current criminal activities of the defendant.” Id. at 1288 (quotation and
    alterations omitted). The government argues Varnell failed to show it engineered
    the instant crimes from start to finish because Varnell had already formed a
    general plan to bomb a building before the FBI began its undercover operation.
    Varnell counters that he did not engage in any criminal activity until the FBI
    -8-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937      Date Filed: 12/13/2021   Page: 9
    became involved, and the government devised the crime and directed it from its
    inception. To the extent Varnell suggests that a lack of pre-investigation criminal
    activity on his part made the government’s conduct per se outrageous, we reject
    that suggestion. First, Varnell cites no authority for this proposition and, second,
    we have previously discerned no due process concerns with permitting the
    government to conduct an undercover investigation even when “the government
    conceived and directed [the] crime in which defendant participated.” United
    States v. Gamble, 
    737 F.2d 853
    , 858 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding the government’s
    conduct was not outrageous even though it “used fictitious names to obtain
    driver’s licenses, obtained insurance under those names for automobiles they did
    not own, orchestrated the production of false accident reports, appeared in court
    and pleaded guilty to traffic violations, and solicited defendant’s aid in making
    false claims against insurance companies”).
    Although not dispositive, Varnell’s conduct before the government began
    its investigation is relevant to the question of whether the government’s conduct
    was outrageous under the totality of the circumstances. But, even accepting
    Varnell’s assertion that his initial conduct was neither criminal nor an indication
    he had formed a concrete plan, the conduct was deeply disturbing. Varnell stated
    he was “out for blood” and wanted to “go[] after government officials when [he
    had] a team”; he expressed an intent to form a team “to bomb some fucking
    banks”; and he told Elisens that “[t]he government is going to fucking burn with
    -9-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021     Page: 10
    those who stand with it.” Varnell also touted his knowledge of bomb-making
    chemistry, and he specifically stated: “I finally have a chance to do something
    about how things are, I plan to do as much as I can. I’ve been reading about the
    best places to find stuff to make bombs.” Varnell now asserts these statements
    are akin to puffery. But, in light of the frequency and specificity of Varnell’s
    statements, the FBI would have been remiss in ignoring them.
    Varnell’s conduct after the FBI began its investigation likewise does not
    support his position that he is entitled to dismissal of the charges based on
    outrageous government conduct. See Dyke, 718 F.3d at 1288-89 (noting this court
    has applied the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis by looking at, inter alia,
    “how eagerly and actively the defendant himself participated in the current crime
    charged”). Admittedly, the government played a substantial role in the plan by
    providing all the materials necessary to complete the bomb and nearly all the
    expertise. But, in Gamble, we held the government’s conduct was not outrageous
    even though evidence demonstrated the details of the plan originated with the
    government, not the defendant. 
    737 F.2d at 858
    . Further, Varnell’s role in the
    crime was significant. He expressed no hesitation in meeting with Williams to
    discuss the logistics of the bombing, and thereafter actively participated in
    scouting targets and building the bomb. Crucially, Varnell drove the van
    containing the inert bomb to the BancFirst building, circled the building until a
    security vehicle left the alleyway, and then attempted to detonate the bomb three
    -10-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937      Date Filed: 12/13/2021    Page: 11
    times. Although Williams provided Varnell with detailed instructions on how to
    arm the bomb, Varnell independently, and correctly, followed those instructions.
    These acts, which Varnell undertook entirely of his own volition, are alone
    sufficient to support the two charges of which Varnell was convicted.
    Varnell also argues several underlying circumstances support his position
    that the government acted outrageously. First, he asserts the government took
    advantage of his mental illness, and his appellate brief contains an extensive
    discussion of his mental health diagnosis and treatment. At Varnell’s trial, Dr.
    Shawn Roberson, a forensic psychologist, testified Varnell suffered from a mental
    health disorder that contributed to his “lack of insight and poor judgment” and
    caused him to be “passive and subordinate and deferential.” Varnell argues the
    government took advantage of his medical condition by “feeding his paranoia.”
    Varnell’s mental health, while relevant, does not tip the scales in favor of
    concluding his due process rights were violated, particularly since he has not
    shown the government was fully aware of his condition or purposefully targeted
    him because of it. See United States v. Doe, 
    698 F.3d 1284
    , 1293 (10th Cir.
    2012) (“[T]he outrageous conduct defense focuses on the government’s
    conduct.”). Varnell asserts his mental health records were readily available for
    the government to review but it failed to engage in any due diligence. He cites
    no authority, however, for the proposition that the government acts in an
    outrageous manner by failing to fully investigate the mental health of an
    -11-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040    Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021    Page: 12
    individual targeted in an investigation. Further, although there was trial
    testimony that in March 2017 the government became aware of an allegation
    Varnell suffered from schizophrenia, one of the FBI agents involved in the
    investigation testified she was not aware of any evidence Varnell suffered from
    any “schizophrenic delusion or hallucinations during the course of [the]
    investigation or on the day of his arrest.” Agent Williams, who interacted with
    Varnell more than any other FBI agent, testified he was not told Varnell was
    schizophrenic. And Dr. Roberson, Varnell’s expert witness, testified that Varnell
    was “treated on an outpatient basis for schizophrenia between 2016-2017, and his
    symptoms were described as being stable with psychotropic medication.” Dr.
    Roberson also testified that unless a person with paranoid schizophrenia is
    “exhibiting their paranoia towards you . . . or . . . talking about their delusions,”
    “you might not ever know that they are mentally ill.”
    Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude the evidence does not
    show the government was aware Varnell was suffering from symptoms associated
    with his mental illness during the period of its investigation. Neither does it
    indicate agents knowingly took advantage of his mental illness to goad him into
    participating in the bombing plan. Accordingly, Varnell’s mental health does not
    support the conclusion that the government’s conduct was outrageous.
    As part of our analysis of the overall circumstances, we also consider the
    undisputed evidence that Elisens provided Varnell with marijuana and the two
    -12-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937      Date Filed: 12/13/2021   Page: 13
    used it during their in-person meetings. Again, however, we must examine the
    government’s conduct, not Elisens’s conduct, see 
    id.,
     and there is no evidence
    supporting Varnell’s assertion the government “tolerated” Elisens’s conduct.
    According to Elisens, he told the FBI he would stop using marijuana when he
    became an informant. Further, Agent Eric Larsen testified the FBI admonished
    Elisens when it reviewed the surveillance tapes and “learned that he not only was
    smoking marijuana with Mr. Varnell but that he had actually taken marijuana to
    some of [the] meetings.” The government’s conduct as to Elisens’s act of
    providing marijuana to Varnell falls far short of shocking “the universal sense of
    justice.” Russell, 
    411 U.S. at 432
     (quotation omitted).
    There is no denying the FBI’s investigation in this matter was aggressive
    and its participation in constructing the bomb and choosing a target was
    extensive. But this court has previously held that the outrageous government
    conduct doctrine does not necessarily apply even when the government
    “suggest[s] the illegal activity” and provides “supplies and expertise.” United
    States v. Pedraza, 
    27 F.3d 1515
    , 1521 (10th Cir. 1994). Further, the statements
    Varnell made to Elisens before the investigation began were deeply troubling,
    and Varnell voluntarily engaged in serious criminal conduct during the course of
    the investigation. And Varnell has not shown that the FBI targeted him because
    of his mental illness or exploited his mental health. Having considered all the
    relevant circumstances, we conclude the government’s conduct was not
    -13-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040    Document: 010110617937        Date Filed: 12/13/2021    Page: 14
    “shocking, outrageous, and clearly intolerable.” Dyke, 718 F.3d at 1289
    (quotation omitted). Thus, Varnell’s prosecution did not violate his right to due
    process.
    B. Terrorism Enhancement
    Varnell also challenges his sentence, arguing the district court erred in
    applying the twelve-level terrorism enhancement to calculate his advisory
    guidelines range. See USSG § 3A1.4. According to Varnell, application of the
    enhancement increased his advisory guidelines range from 151–188 months to
    life imprisonment. He was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment only because
    the district court varied downward.
    “In determining whether the district court correctly calculated the
    recommended Guidelines range, we review de novo the district court’s legal
    conclusions pertaining to the Guidelines and review its factual findings[] . . . for
    clear error.” United States v. Todd, 
    515 F.3d 1128
    , 1135 (10th Cir. 2008).
    Pursuant to § 3A1.4 of the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant whose crime of
    conviction was “a felony that involved, or was intended to promote, a federal
    crime of terrorism,” receives a twelve-level enhancement to his base offense level
    and is assigned a criminal history category of VI. A “federal crime of terrorism”
    is defined as an offense that “(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct
    of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government
    conduct” and “(B) is a violation of . . . [18 U.S.C. §§] 844(i) . . . [or] 2332a.” 18
    -14-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040    Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021    Page: 15
    U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5); see also USSG § 3A1.4, cmt. n.1. Varnell does not dispute
    that the crime of conviction falls within the second part of this definition.
    In the objection Varnell raised before the district court, he asserted
    generally that the enhancement should not apply unless the government presented
    “some evidence that the ‘plot’ that developed during the spring and summer of
    2017 was [his] and that he intended to influence, affect or retaliate against
    government conduct.” The United States Probation Office responded to this
    objection in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) as follows:
    [T]he probation officer believes that there is sufficient grounds,
    based on statements the defendant made to [Elisens] and [Williams]
    and in social media postings, that the purpose of this planned
    bombing was to either influence or affect the conduct of the
    government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against
    government conduct. The defendant specifically discussed targeting
    federal facilities or data centers because of the impact that loss of
    such targets would have on commerce and the government, and his
    desire to cause harm to the government.
    When the district court overruled the objection, it stated:
    With respect to this objection, . . . the Court agrees with and adopts
    the response of the report writer. There was ample evidence
    introduced during trial that the defendant’s actions were motivated
    by anger toward the government and a desire to incite a revolution.
    One need look no further than his so-called manifesto that he
    intended to disseminate via the Internet after the planned bombing.
    The “manifesto” to which the district court referred was the following statement
    Varnell drafted shortly before the planned detonation of the bomb:
    What happened in Oklahoma City was not an attack on America, it
    was retaliation. Retaliation against the freedoms that have been
    -15-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040    Document: 010110617937        Date Filed: 12/13/2021      Page: 16
    taken away from the American people. It was a wake-up call to both
    the government and the people, an act done to show the government
    what the people thinks [sic] of its actions. It is also a call to arms, to
    show people that there are still fighters among the American people.
    The time for revolution is now.
    Elisens testified that Varnell sent him the statement and asked him to disseminate
    it online after the bombing.
    On appeal, Varnell makes two narrow arguments. First, he asserts the
    manifesto is not dispositive of the question of whether the terrorism enhancement
    applies because it was written at the “insistence” of Elisens as part of “consistent
    and heavy-handed pressure” placed on him to participate in the bombing. 2 In the
    same vein, he further asserts the record evidence is insufficient to show he had
    the specific intent required by 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5) because the plan was
    concocted by the FBI and he was pressured into participating. Varnell’s
    argument, however, is unresponsive to the relevant question of why he
    participated in the crimes of conviction. And, as to that question, Varnell has not
    2
    Varnell also argues application of the enhancement was procedurally
    unreasonable because the district court failed to make necessary findings to
    support it. He asserts the court simply relied on the statement by the Probation
    Office in the PSR. This argument is unavailing for two reasons. First, Varnell
    failed to raise this issue before the district court. See United States v. Steele, 
    603 F.3d 803
    , 807 (10th Cir. 2010) (“If [defendant] had objections to the sentence
    imposed or, more particularly, to the decision-making process, he could and
    should have raised them at a time and in such a way as to afford the trial judge an
    opportunity to correct any error, clarify any ambiguity or elaborate as
    necessary.”). Second, there was no procedural error. The district court clearly
    stated its decision was based on the language of the manifesto and other
    “evidence introduced during trial.”
    -16-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040    Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021    Page: 17
    pointed to any evidence showing either the FBI or Elisens provided him with a
    motivation to participate in the bombing plan. For example, even if, as Varnell
    argues, Elisens influenced his decision to draft the manifesto containing his
    objectives for bombing the BancFirst building, he does not point to record
    evidence showing Elisens suggested any of the language or otherwise assisted
    him in composing it. There is likewise no evidence the FBI suggested to Varnell
    that he could, or should, incite a revolution by bombing buildings.
    Varnell’s second argument is raised for the first time in his reply brief. He
    asserts that the retaliation ground of 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5) cannot support
    application of the terrorism enhancement unless the government conduct against
    which he was allegedly retaliating was specifically identified. This argument is
    based on this court’s recent ruling in United States v. Ansberry, 
    976 F.3d 1108
    ,
    1129 (10th Cir. 2020), where we held that “if a sentencing court applies a
    § 3A1.4 terrorism enhancement on the ground that the defendant’s offense was
    calculated to retaliate against government conduct, the conduct that the defendant
    retaliates against must objectively be government conduct.” Varnell’s argument,
    however, like this court’s holding in Ansberry, is limited to the so-called
    retaliation prong of § 2332(b)(g)(5). His reply brief specifically states: “[I]n
    light of the Court’s ruling in Ansberry, to the extent the district court’s decision
    is based on the ‘retaliation’ prong of § 2332b(g)(5), Appellant requests the
    district court be required to make specific findings as to: 1) what conduct
    -17-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040      Document: 010110617937      Date Filed: 12/13/2021   Page: 18
    Appellant was retaliating against, and 2) whether that conduct is objectively
    governmental.” Varnell makes no assertion the holding in Ansberry should be
    extended to the remaining provisions of § 2332b(g)(5) and has cited no precedent
    from this court or any other so extending Ansberry.
    Even if we were to conclude that application of the terrorism enhancement
    on the grounds of retaliation could not be upheld under Ansberry because there
    was inadequate evidence or findings as to retaliation, the district court did not
    solely rely on the retaliation prong to apply this enhancement. The record
    contains ample evidence showing the bombing was “calculated to influence or
    affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion”—the provisions of
    § 2332b(g)(5) not addressed in Ansberry. For example, in September 2016, well
    before the FBI initiated its investigation, Varnell told Elisens: “If I could vote,
    I’d vote Trump. This country needs a revolution and the government needs to be
    weakened to give the people the courage to do it.” Later in 2016, he told Elisens
    he was “out for blood” and was “going after government officials” once “militias
    start getting formed.” On the same day, Varnell wrote to Elisens: “I finally have
    a chance to do something about how things are, I plan to do as much as I can.
    I’ve been reading about the best places to find stuff to make bombs.” The next
    day, Varnell wrote: “When I’m able I’m going to do some Tyler Durden 3 shit.
    3
    At trial, the government’s witness testified that Tyler Durden is a fictional
    (continued...)
    -18-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040    Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021   Page: 19
    The government is going to fucking burn with those who stand with it.” On May
    9, 2017, Varnell sent Elisens a message stating: “Hillary [Clinton] may not have
    won but big monopolies need to go down still. I don’t have hope for trump but
    he’s already fucking shit up bad” and another stating: “Fuck trump. Fuck
    monopolies. Shit needs to burn.” When Varnell and Elisens were discussing
    possible targets Varnell stated: “Well we’re doing this in the name of freedom.
    So whichever locations that would hurt the government the worst.” On June 26,
    2017, Varnell met with Williams and indicated it was important that the federal
    government be connected to the target location in some manner. He told
    Williams he wanted to do something that would “somehow cripple the
    government . . . and send[] a message that says, ‘You are a target.’”
    Considered as a whole, this evidence shows Varnell’s intent was “to
    influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion,” 18
    U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5). Thus, there was no error in the application of the twelve-
    level terrorism enhancement. 4
    3
    (...continued)
    character from the movie, Fight Club. The character is involved in bombing
    buildings.
    4
    Varnell raises several additional challenges to his sentence in his opening
    appellate brief. We consider them even though the government argues they are
    waived. First, he alleges procedural error in the district court’s failure to consider
    his mental health as grounds for departure pursuant to USSG § 5H1.3 and in the
    court’s failure to consider sentencing disparities. See United States v. Lente, 
    759 F.3d 1149
    , 1153 (10th Cir. 2014) (Lente III). As to Varnell’s request for a
    (continued...)
    -19-
    Appellate Case: 20-6040   Document: 010110617937       Date Filed: 12/13/2021   Page: 20
    IV. Conclusion
    Varnell’s convictions and sentence are affirmed.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Michael R. Murphy
    Circuit Judge
    4
    (...continued)
    departure, the district court, in fact, ruled on the request, concluding one was not
    warranted. This denial is not reviewable. See United States v. Angel-Guzman,
    
    506 F.3d 1007
    , 1017-18 (10th Cir. 2007). As to the district court’s consideration
    of sentencing disparities, this court has held that a sentencing court “must provide
    only a general statement of its reasons, and need not explicitly refer to either the
    § 3553(a) factors or respond to every argument for leniency that it rejects in
    arriving at a reasonable sentence” unless the sentence imposed is “above the
    applicable Guidelines range.” United States v. Lente, 
    647 F.3d 1021
    , 1034-35
    (10th Cir. 2011) (Lente II) (quotation omitted). Here, the district court varied
    downward when it imposed a 300-month sentence and Varnell has not identified
    any precedent requiring a district court to provide more than a general statement
    of reasons when it imposes a below-guidelines sentence.
    Finally, Varnell argues his 300-month sentence is substantively
    unreasonable. There is, however, a “rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to
    a below-guideline sentence challenged by the defendant as unreasonably harsh.”
    United States v. Balbin-Mesa, 
    643 F.3d 783
    , 788 (10th Cir. 2011). In light of the
    district court’s detailed explanation of how it arrived at Varnell’s below-
    guidelines sentence, the cursory argument in Varnell’s appellate brief is
    insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his sentence.
    -20-