F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
DEC 31 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. No. 98-6089
ROBERT ALLEN MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. CR-97-145-L)
William P. Earley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
for Defendant-Appellant.
Timothy W. Ogilvie, Assistant United States Attorney (Patrick M. Ryan, United
States Attorney, with him on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Before KELLY, HOLLOWAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Robert Allen Martin appeals his conviction of one
count of threatening to murder a law enforcement officer whose killing would be
a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1114, with intent to impede, interfere or retaliate
against the officer, while he was engaged in or on account of his official duties,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §115(a)(1)(B). Mr. Martin contends that the district
court improperly denied his motion to dismiss because the object of the threat was
not a federal officer within the meaning of § 115(a)(1)(B). He also challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence and the calculation of his sentence under the
Sentencing Guidelines. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
In 1996, detectives from the Enid, Oklahoma Police Department and the
Enid office of the FBI launched a cooperative narcotics interdiction effort under
the code name “Enid Storm.” Detective Sergeant Brian O’Rourke, who headed
the narcotics unit of the Enid Police Department, received a special deputation
from the FBI that gave him nationwide jurisdiction while working on Enid Storm.
The joint law enforcement operation resulted in numerous federal indictments,
including those of Danny Bennett and Patrick Gill, two friends of Mr. Martin.
After his arrest, Mr. Bennett agreed to cooperate with law enforcement, and, in
August 1997, he informed the FBI that Mr. Martin had made several threats
against Detective O’Rourke’s life. Using a tape recorder provided by the FBI,
Mr. Bennett recorded a conversation with Mr. Martin on or about August 30,
1997, in which Mr. Martin threatened to unload six bullets into Detective
O’Rourke’s brain. During the same conversation, Mr. Martin planned that he and
-2-
Mr. Bennett would deny knowing each other after the murder. See Gov. Ex. 4-A.
A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Martin on three counts of threatening a
federal law enforcement officer under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). The first two
counts stemmed from threats that Mr. Martin allegedly made on or about August
28, 1997 at Mr. Bennett’s home and at a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in
Enid. A conversation recorded in Mr. Bennett’s home on or about August 30,
1997 provided the basis for the third count. The district court denied Mr.
Martin’s motion to dismiss the case because it found that Detective O’Rouke was
a federal official within the meaning of § 115(a).
At trial, Mr. Bennett not only testified that Mr. Martin made threats against
Detective O’Rourke’s life, see 4 R. at 78, 84, 88, 92-95, but also that Mr. Martin
asked him to buy ammunition and help “case” the police station. See id. at 85-86.
Mr. Bennett and his common law wife, Tonya Sovine, testified that Mr. Martin
showed them three types of weapons around the time that the threats were made:
a .38 pistol, see id. at 72, 150; a sawed-off shotgun, see id. at 83, 164; and a .380
semi-automatic weapon that would increase Mr. Martin’s firepower in a potential
shootout with Detective O’Rourke. See id. at 108-10. Several witnesses,
including Mr. Bennett’s housemate, Mandy Daniels, and the defendant’s mother,
Mary Martin, confirmed that Mr. Martin owned a .380 semi-automatic gun but
had misplaced the clip. See id. at 173-74; 5 R. at 244-45.
-3-
The jury convicted Mr. Martin of the third count, the threat documented on
tape, and acquitted him of the other two. At sentencing, the court calculated a
total offense level of twenty-one, given a base offense level of twelve, see
U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1, with a six-level increase for conduct evidencing intent to carry
out his threats and a three-level victim-related increase for threatening a law
enforcement officer who was assisting the FBI.
A. Denial of Motion to Dismiss
In determining whether a local police detective deputized to participate in
federal narcotics investigation is a federal officer within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), we encounter an issue of first impression. 18 U.S.C. §
115(a)(1)(B) makes it a crime to “threaten[] to . . . murder . . . a Federal law
enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under [18
U.S.C. § 1114].” 18 U.S.C. § 1114 provides for the punishment of
[w]hoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the
United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States
Government . . . while such officer or employee is engaged in or on
account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting
such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on
account of that assistance.
The meaning of an “officer or employee of the United States” or a “person
assisting such an officer” under §1114 thus lies at the heart of this case.
We review the district court’s interpretation of a statute de novo. See
Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 151 F.3d 1251, 1256 (10th Cir.
-4-
1998) (en banc). Yet, while the type of individual encompassed by § 1114 is a
legal question for the court, the jury must decide the ultimate issue of fact –
whether Detective O’Rourke was engaged in the performance of federal duties.
See United States v. Bettelyoun, 16 F.3d 850, 853 (8th Cir. 1994).
Mr. Martin argues that a local police detective does not become a federal
law enforcement officer merely because he has been deputized to assist an FBI
investigation and that, consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction.
According to Mr. Martin, Detective O’Rourke’s authority to aid the FBI derived
from 21 U.S.C. § 878, which explicitly states that “[s]tate and local law
enforcement officers performing functions under this section shall not be deemed
Federal employees and shall not be subject to provisions of law relating to
Federal employees, except [5 U.S.C. 3374(c)].” 21 U.S.C. § 878(b). Section
3374(c) in turn enumerates the statutory provisions under which state or local
government employees assigned or on detail to a federal agency shall be
considered federal employees. See 5 U.S.C. § 3374(c)(2). Because § 3374(c)
does not refer to § 115, Mr. Martin concludes that § 115 does not apply to special
deputies like Detective O’Rourke, an employee of the city of Enid.
Mr. Martin’s argument fails because it erroneously conflates the terms
“officer” and “employee.” While the statutes upon which Mr. Martin relies
pertain to employment status, neither § 115(a)(1)(B) nor § 1114 require that the
-5-
object of the threat be a federal employee. In holding that a special deputy U.S.
marshal was a federal officer for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 111, an analogous
federal assault statute that also incorporates § 1114, the Ninth Circuit noted that
§ 3374(c) “deals primarily with employment matters.” United States v. Diamond,
53 F.3d 249, 251 (9th Cir. 1995). The Diamond court identified the dispositive
factors under the assault statute as the officer’s assistance to federal agents and
his cross-deputation, rather than the source of his salary. See id.
The holding in Diamond comports with the Supreme Court’s view that
Congress intended § 111 to protect federal functions as well as federal officers.
See United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 679 (1975). Other circuits construing
the assault statute have reached similar conclusions. See Bettelyoun, 16 F.3d at
853 (holding that tribal officers under contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
were federal officers under §111); United States v. Oakie, 12 F.3d 1436, 1440
(8th Cir. 1993) (affirming jury finding that tribal officer was BIA special deputy
performing federal functions when assaulted); United States v. Torres, 862 F.2d
1025, 1030 (3rd Cir. 1988) (concluding that officer assigned to DEA Task Force
at time of assault “fell within the ambit of those persons sheltered by section
111”).
Mr. Martin attempts to distinguish § 111 from § 115, the threat statute at
issue here. However, both the assault statute and the threat statute rely on
-6-
§ 1114's definition of protected persons. See 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(A), (B); 18
U.S.C. § 111(a). Furthermore, the contention that Bettelyoun and related cases
are inapposite because the tribal officers in question derived federal authority
from the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act of 1990, see 25 U.S.C. § 2804(a),
ignores the Eighth Circuit’s observation that “[e]ven in the absence of a § 2804
contract, a tribal officer who has been designated as a Deputy Special Officer of
the BIA is a federal officer within the meaning of § 111 when performing the
federal duties he or she had been deputized to perform.” Bettelyoun, 16 F.3d at
853 n.2. The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act does not provide the sole basis
of federal jurisdiction in cases involving tribal officers. See Oakie, 12 F.3d at
1440 & n.2 (government sustained the burden of proof that a tribal officer, acting
without § 2804(a) contract, was enforcing federal law). Thus, we can look to §
111 decisions for guidance in determining whether Detective O’Rourke was a
federal officer under § 115.
Like the officers in the § 111 cases, Detective O’Rourke was deputized to
participate in a federal investigation during the time that the charged conduct
occurred. Moreover, even if Detective O’Rourke had stopped working with the
FBI by late August 1997, he still would have enjoyed the protection of § 115
because the threats could be construed as retaliation for earlier federal
indictments with which he assisted. See United States v. Raymer, 876 F.2d 383,
-7-
390 (5th Cir. 1989) (stating that § 115 “clearly cover[s] an official not only while
he was in the performance of his duties but also against retaliation after his duties
were completed.”). Hence, we hold that Detective O’Rourke was a federal officer
within the meaning of §§ 115 and 1114 or, alternatively, that he would come
within the scope of the relevant statutes as an individual assisting a federal
officer. See Diamond, 53 F.3d at 252. The district court properly denied Mr.
Martin’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Mr. Martin next contends that a reasonable jury could not have found that
his statements constituted a true threat. In his view, the evidence indicated only
that the threats arose from drunken indiscretion and did not reveal any serious
intent to murder Detective O’Rourke.
When we consider the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a criminal
conviction, our task is to determine whether, “after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); United States v. Morehead, 959 F.2d 1489,
1499 (10th Cir. 1992). Whether a statement constitutes a true threat under 18
U.S.C. § 115 represents a jury question to be reviewed in the light most favorable
to the government. See United States v. Roberts, 915 F.2d 889, 891 (4th Cir.
-8-
1990).
We have not yet considered the requirements of a true threat under § 115;
however, other circuits have analogized them to the elements of 18 U.S.C.
§ 871, the statutory provision protecting the President of the United States. See,
e.g., id. at 890. Following the Supreme Court’s definition of a true threat under §
871, see Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707-08 (1969), this circuit has held
that the wilfulness element of § 871 does not require present intent to inflict
bodily harm. See United States v. Hart, 457 F.2d 1087, 1090 (10th Cir. 1972).
Under § 871,
it is not necessary to show that the defendant intended to carry out
the threat, nor is it necessary to prove that the defendant actually had
the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
The question is whether those who hear or read the threat
reasonably consider that an actual threat has been made. It is the
making of the threat, not the intention to carry it out, that violates the
law.
United States v. Welch, 745 F.2d 614, 618 (10th Cir. 1984) (quoting trial court’s
jury instructions in United States v. Dysart, 705 F. 2d 1247, 1256 (10th Cir. 1983)
with approval). In Welch, evidence that the defendant “appeared to be angry but
that he was lucid,” id. at 619, was sufficient to sustain a § 871 conviction, even
though the defendant was using large amounts of medication and suffered from
attention deficit disorder. See id. at 617.
Other circuits’ interpretation of § 115(a)(1)(B) tracks our definition of a
-9-
true threat under § 871. For example, the Fifth Circuit has held that, under
§ 115(a)(1)(B), “the key point is whether the defendant intentionally
communicated the threat,” not whether he intended or had the capability to carry
it out. United States v. Stevenson, 126 F.3d 662, 664 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing
United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1990)). In
Stevenson, the recipient of the threat reasonably feared violence, even though the
defendant was incarcerated, because he might inflict harm upon his release.
Stevenson, 126 F.3d at 665.
In the instant matter, Mr. Bennett testified that Mr. Martin did not appear to
be drunk when he made the threat that formed the basis of the count of
conviction. See 4 R. at 136. Moreover, on the tape played to the jury, Mr. Martin
repeatedly reaffirmed his plans to shoot Detective O’Rourke – including his
motives, the type of gun to be used, and his strategy for evading law enforcement.
See Gov. Ex. 4-A. A rational jury could have evaluated the tape and the
corroborating testimony to conclude that the threats were not merely drunken
boasting. Moreover, testimony that Detective O’Rourke began taking special
precautions when he learned of the threats could have convinced a reasonable
trier of fact that the detective feared injury or death from Mr. Martin. See 4 R. at
59-60; see also United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486, 1499 (1st Cir. 1997)
(noting that several circuits consider “evidence of the recipient’s reactions to the
- 10 -
alleged threat relevant”); Roberts, 915 F.2d at 890-91.
Mr. Martin also argues that, because he did not communicate the threats
directly to Detective O’Rourke, the jury lacked sufficient evidence that he
attempted to retaliate against or impede a federal officer within the meaning of §
115. This court has not required that true threats be made directly to the proposed
victim. See United States v. Crews, 781 F.2d. 826, 829, 832 (10th Cir. 1986)
(holding that threats against the President made to a psychiatric nurse violated §
871); Welch, 745 F.2d at 616, 620 (upholding § 871 conviction of defendant who
communicated threats against the President to mental health employees and then
to secret service agents); see also United States v. Raymer, 876 F.2d 383, 391 (5th
Cir. 1989) (stating that “actual receipt”of the threat is not an element of a § 115
offense). Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,
we hold that a rational jury could have found Mr. Martin guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.
C. Sentencing
Mr. Martin argues that the district court erred in its sentencing calculation
because the presentence report (“PSR”) on which it relied contained facts
unsupported by credible evidence. The PSR recommended a six-level specific
offense characteristic increase under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(1), which applies if the
defendant engaged in conduct showing intent to carry out his threats. See 2 R. at
- 11 -
5. In support of this recommendation, the PSR noted that Mr. Martin asked Mr.
Bennett to purchase ammunition for his gun and drive to the Enid Police
Department to case the site. See id. It also stated that Mr. Martin devised a
detailed plan for killing Detective O’Rourke, told Mr. Bennett of this plan, and
exchanged a .38 revolver for a .380 semi-automatic weapon to increase his
firepower in a potential shootout with the detective. See id. Mr. Martin contends
that the factors listed in this portion of the PSR “are wholly lacking in specificity
and . . . reliability.” See Aplt Br. at 27.
We review factual findings supporting a sentencing decision for clear error
and will not disturb such findings unless they have no basis in the record. See
United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1289 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Hooks,
65 F.3d 850, 854 (10th Cir. 1995). Mr. Martin’s objections to the § 2A6.1(b)(1)
increase stem largely from his perception that the district court relied on
testimony that the jury did not find credible. For example, he notes that the
request for Mr. Bennett to buy ammunition allegedly occurred in the context of a
count of which he was acquitted. Testimony about his acquisition of a .380
firearm also related to counts of which he was acquitted. According to Mr.
Martin, acquittal indicates that the jury did not believe the witnesses who testified
about his preparations to carry out his threats and thus that the § 2A6.1(b)(1)
increase was improper.
- 12 -
The sentencing court has discretion to make credibility determinations for
sentencing purposes, see Ivy, 83 F.3d at 1289, and we decline to review the
credibility of a witness’ testimony on appeal. See Hooks, 65 F.3d at 854. Even
though the chief witness for the government was an informant, the district court
enjoyed a better vantage from which to assess the credibility of his testimony than
does an appellate court. See United States v. Garcia, 78 F.3d 1457, 1466 (10th
Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1239 (1996) (placing significance on the trial
judge’s ability to find “the informants’ testimony to be sufficiently reliable after
observing their demeanor in court”).
Moreover, the fact that the sentencing court relied on incidents allegedly
related to counts of which Mr. Martin was acquitted does not constitute error. We
have held that “[a] sentencing court may look beyond the charges alleged in the
indictment.” United States v. Dennino, 29 F.3d 572, 578 (10th Cir. 1994). For
similar reasons, we do not find clear error in a sentencing decision based on
factors outside the count of conviction, so long as they possess sufficient indicia
of reliability.
AFFIRMED.
- 13 -
- 14 -
United States v. Martin
Combined Opinion