Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the application of a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(4)(A) for substantial disruption of governmental functions. The court held that a non-public-facing courthouse security response may qualify as such a disruption and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the disruption substantial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a non-public-facing security response to a threat may qualify as a substantial disruption of governmental functions under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(4)(A).
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that Brandenburg's threat caused a substantial disruption of governmental functions and applying the sentencing enhancement.
Holdings
- A non-public-facing security response to a threat may qualify as a substantial disruption of governmental functions under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(4)(A). Security personnel perform integral governmental functions, and demands that stretch those personnel beyond their normal scope of duties can constitute a disruption even when courthouse operations continue and the response is not visible to the public.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(4)(A) because the evidence showed a significant interruption of normal governmental security activities measured by its scope and duration.
Key quotations
“We hold that a non-public-facing security response to a threat may qualify as a “substantial disruption of . . . governmental . . . functions” under Sentencing Guideline 2A6.1(b)(4)(A).” (at 4)
“We agree with the district court that members of security staff constitute essential parts of the organizational machinery that allow the government to function, and that demands beyond security staff’s normal scope of duties can, as a matter of law, constitute a disruption of governmental functions under Guideline 2A6.1(b)(4)(A).” (at 13)
Factual background
Brandenburg sent bomb threats by email directed at a Salt Lake City courthouse and other governmental and educational institutions. In response, courthouse security formed a threat working group, coordinated with law enforcement, enhanced screening, reviewed surveillance footage, and conducted continuous patrols. Approximately fifteen deputies were diverted from their normal duties for a high-alert response lasting from May 4 through May 6, and additional authorities responded to threats against Hall Labs and the University of Utah.
Procedural history
A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii convicted Brandenburg on one count under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) and six counts under 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). The district court applied the enhancement for substantial disruption of governmental functions and imposed concurrent sentences of sixty months on the § 875(c) count and seventy months on each § 844(e) count. Brandenburg appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.