United States v. Drew Manns
690 F. App'x 347
6th Cir.2017Background
- In August 2014 while incarcerated, Drew Manns sent (or framed) three letters containing a white powder and threats referencing “Anthrax” to the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office and Clerk of Courts; the powder tested as a sugar substitute.
- Forensic handwriting matched the three letters to Manns; emails and calls show Manns researching Robert Penn (a fellow inmate) and later telling his fiancée “i took care of that guy who stole my shit.”
- Manns was indicted on two counts of mailing threatening communications (18 U.S.C. § 876(c)) and two counts of sending false information/hoaxes (18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1)); he pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.
- At sentencing the PSR applied a six‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(a)–(b) (Official Victim), raising the total offense level; court reduced level for acceptance of responsibility and for mental/physical conditions and sentenced Manns to 51 months.
- Manns appealed, arguing (1) the § 3A1.2 enhancement was not motivated by victims’ official status, (2) letters were sent to offices not specified individuals, and (3) § 3A1.2 does not cover state/local employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Manns) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation / standard of review | Objection to enhancement was preserved but government contends it was too vague | Government urged plain‑error review for some arguments | Court found Manns’s objection sufficiently specific; applied de novo review |
| Motivation required by § 3A1.2(a)(2) | Manns: motive was personal (to punish Penn), not the victims’ official status | Gov.: Manns targeted government offices to trigger official action against Penn, so official status was integral to motive | Enhancement applies — sending to government offices to spur official responses shows motivation by official status |
| “Specified individual” requirement | Manns: letters addressed to offices, not to identified individuals, so enhancement shouldn’t apply | Gov.: letters referenced those involved in Penn’s case and were opened by specific employees; threats targeted office personnel | Enhancement applies — threats sufficiently specified intended recipients even if not by name |
| Applicability to state/local employees | Manns: § 3A1.2 should be limited to federal employees | Gov.: precedent treats state/local employees as covered for § 3A1.2 purposes | Enhancement applies to state and local government employees (Sixth Circuit precedent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Talley, 164 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 1999) (§ 3A1.2 applied where defendant targeted known federal agent to derail investigation)
- United States v. McAninch, 994 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 1993) (threats to President’s office held motivated by official status where purpose was to implicate others and attract authorities)
- United States v. Conaway, 713 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2013) (enhancement appropriate where threats anticipated law‑enforcement response from federal agencies)
- United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997) (declining to require a named individual; enhancement applies when intended government employees are identifiable)
- United States v. Hudspeth, 208 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 2000) (§ 3A1.2 applies to state and local government employees)