Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Joseph Arthur Bolton

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-10865
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSEPH ARTHUR BOLTON
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-24-1
Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph Arthur Bolton appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty
plea conviction for making threats against the President of the United States in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871. He argues that the district court erred in enhancing
his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(1).
We review the procedural soundness and substantive reasonableness of
Bolton’s sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Gall v.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 16, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-10865
2
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). The district court’s determination
that, pursuant to § 2A6.1(b)(1), Bolton’s conduct evidenced an intent to carry out
his threats is a factual finding and must be reviewed for clear error. United
States v. Goynes, 175 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir. 1999).
Because Bolton solicited another person to assassinate the President and
because he attempted to travel to the President’s ranch for reconnaissance
purposes, the district court did not clearly err in applying the § 2A6.1(b)(1)
enhancement. See Goynes, 175 F.3d at 355. In addition, Bolton points to
nothing in the Guidelines that precludes application of the § 2A6.1 enhancement
if the defendant could not have ultimately carried out his threat. Accordingly,
the district court did not clearly err in applying the § 2A6.1(b)(1) enhancement.
Moreover, because the district court imposed a sentence within the properly
calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at
597; Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Alonzo,
435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Bolton’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --