United States v. Scott ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 26 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-1539
(D.C. No. 00-CR-296-WM)
MICHAEL C. SCOTT, (D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , Chief Judge, ANDERSON , Circuit Judge, and BRORBY ,
Senior Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Michael C. Scott appeals the sentence imposed following his convictions
for three counts of sending threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 875(c), and one count of sending a threatening communication with an intent to
extort in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(b). He argues that the trial court erred in
imposing a 6-level upward adjustment for conduct evidencing an intent to carry
out the threats and by determining that it was precluded from departing downward
based on diminished capacity. We affirm.
Mr. Scott entered a guilty plea to the four counts of sending threatening
communications by e-mail. The e-mails mentioned specific weapons. The district
court determined that Mr. Scott’s possession of these weapons as well as his
going to the home of an FBI agent whom he had threatened constituted conduct
evidencing an intent to carry out the threats. Accordingly, the court imposed a 6-
level specific offense characteristic increase under USSG § 2A6.1(b)(1) (“If the
offense involved any conduct evidencing an intent to carry out such threat,
increase by 6 levels.”).
Mr. Scott argues that because he possessed these weapons long before he
made the threats and that the district court committed clear error in determining
that he had gone to the agent’s home, the court erred in imposing the
enhancement. “We review factual findings supporting a sentencing decision for
clear error and will not disturb such findings unless they have no basis in the
-2-
record.” United States v. Martin , 163 F.3d 1212, 1217 (10th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied , 526 U.S. 1137 (1999). The fact that Mr. Scott had possessed the weapons
before he made the threats charged in the indictment does not mean that he did
not intend to carry out the threats. It is undisputed that Mr. Scott possessed
approximately 80 firearms and 40,000 rounds of ammunition as well as
information pertaining to the construction and use of weapons and explosives. In
addition, evidence was introduced that Mr. Scott followed an FBI agent to his
home. Mr. Scott disputes the sufficiency of this evidence because the witnesses
could not positively identify him as the individual who went to the agent’s home.
However, the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Scott had followed the agent
came from his own admission that he had followed the agent. Accordingly, we
cannot say that the court committed plain error in enhancing the sentence under §
2A6.1(b)(1).
Mr. Scott also argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant a
downward departure for diminished capacity. Under USSG § 5K2.13, p.s., a
downward departure may be warranted if the defendant committed the offense
while suffering from a “significantly reduced mental capacity.” However, the
section also provides that the court may not depart if “the facts and circumstances
of the defendant’s offense indicate a need to protect the public because the
offense involved actual violence or a serious threat of violence.”
-3-
The court concluded that although Mr. Scott suffered from diminished
capacity, it was precluded from granting the departure by the Guidelines as a
matter of law because Mr. Scott’s actions included very serious threats of
violence. We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual
findings for clear error, affording great deference to the district court’s
application of the Guidelines to the facts. United States v. Eaton , 260 F.3d 1232,
1237 (10th Cir. 2001).
We have already determined that there was sufficient evidence to support
the district court’s enhancement for conduct evidencing an intent to carry out the
threats. This evidence also supports the conclusion that there existed a serious
threat of violence. Accordingly, the court did not err in concluding that it was
precluded from granting a downward departure for diminished capacity.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRMED .
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Chief Judge
-4-