Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a defendant pleaded guilty to bank robbery and was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and a restitution order of $1,218. The defendant appealed the sentencing, challenging a two-level enhancement applied for making a death threat during the robbery. This challenge was reviewed for plain error, as it had not been raised in the district court. The court upheld the enhancement under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F), determining that the defendant's conduct, which included physical assaults and threats, could reasonably instill fear of death in a victim, thus justifying the enhancement. Additionally, the defendant argued that the district court erred by not establishing a restitution payment plan. The government conceded the need for a remand on this issue since the payment schedule was not specified. Consequently, while the court affirmed the judgment regarding the sentence, it remanded the case to clarify the restitution order. This decision underscores the importance of proper procedural adherence in sentencing and restitution orders.
Legal Issues Addressed
Restitution Order and Payment Schedule Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court recognized the necessity of remand to clarify the restitution order because the district court failed to specify a payment schedule, acknowledging the government's concession.
Reasoning: The judgment was affirmed, but the case was remanded solely to clarify the restitution order.
Sentencing Enhancements under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied a two-level enhancement to the defendant's offense level for making a death threat during a robbery, despite the lack of explicit intent to kill, by focusing on whether his conduct could instill fear of death in a reasonable person.
Reasoning: The court found no plain error, citing the appropriate enhancement under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F), which applies when a death threat is made during a robbery.
Standard of Review for Unraised Issuessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed the defendant's claim of improper sentence enhancement for plain error because the issue was not raised in the district court.
Reasoning: This appeal was reviewed for plain error as the issue was not raised in the district court.