United States v. Douglas Wright
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5736
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendants Wright, Baxter, Stevens, and Hayne were arrested in April 2012 for a bridge bombing plot in Ohio that involved inert C-4; an FBI informant participated as CHS.
- All four pled guilty to conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempt to use a weapon of mass destruction, and aiding and abetting in malicious use of explosives.
- District court applied a 12-level terrorism enhancement under USSG § 3A1.4 to each defendant.
- Thegovernment contends the offenses were intended to influence government conduct; defendants contest the enhancement, and Hayne challenges only later sentencing issues.
- Sentences: Wright 138 months, Baxter 117 months, Stevens 97 months, Hayne 72 months; lifetime supervised release for all.
- This appeal affirms Wright, Baxter, Stevens; Hayne’s sentence is affirmed by the main opinion, while Judge Cole would remand for Hayne.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3A1.4 requires intended influence of government. | Government must show intent to influence government conduct. | Defendants contend no government-specific intent; acts targeted private or generalized disruption. | Intent to influence government required; the district court properly applied to Wright, Baxter, Stevens, and Hayne. |
| Whether Wright, Baxter, Stevens satisfied leadership/organization element for § 3B1.1(c). | Wright coordinated, recruited, and directed planning; he directed CHS contact and meetings. | Leadership contested; CHS may have been primary organizer; other factors dispute sole leadership. | District court properly applied 2-level leadership enhancement; not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the district court adequately explained Hayne's terrorism enhancement. | Hayne knowingly joined a larger terrorist plot and aided the scheme. | Hayne lacked detailed knowledge; district court failed to clearly articulate basis for enhancement. | Hayne's sentence affirmed; if any error existed, it was harmless given context and record. |
| Procedural/substantive reasonableness of Stevens and Baxter sentences. | Judicial decisions properly considered § 3553(a) factors and provided rational reductions. | Defendants argued misapplication of facts and inadequate explanation for certain elements. | Sentences affirmed as procedurally and substantively reasonable; no reversible error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Graham, 275 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2001) (terrorism enhancement extends to inchoate offenses)
- United States v. Layne, 324 F.3d 464 (6th Cir. 2003) (preponderance standard for § 2332b(g)(5))
- United States v. Fore, 507 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for factual findings; de novo for law)
- United States v. Dye, 538 Fed.Appx. 654 (6th Cir. 2013) (example of natural inference supporting intent)
- United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004) (intent to promote federal terrorism offense can support enhancement)
- United States v. Leahy, 169 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 1999) (no government-intent when targeting private individuals)
- United States v. Awan, 607 F.3d 306 (2d Cir. 2010) (intent can exist alongside other motives)