United States v. Joshua Pillault
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5849
5th Cir.2015Background
- Defendant Joshua Pillault, while playing the online game RuneScape, posted threats to reenact the Columbine shooting at Oxford High School and to "level" the school; those statements were reported and traced to his home.
- FBI forensic examination of Pillault’s computer revealed searches and folders related to Columbine and instructions for weapons and explosives; no weapons or attack plans were found in his home.
- Two ex-girlfriends testified at sentencing that Pillault was obsessed with Columbine, had specific plans, purchased a copper pipe (allegedly to make a pipe bomb), and tested Molotov cocktails; Pillault denied these allegations and claimed he was "trolling."
- Pillault pleaded guilty to knowingly and willfully communicating a threat under 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). The PSR applied a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(1) for conduct evidencing intent to carry out the threat; the district court adopted the enhancement and upwardly varied to a 72-month sentence.
- The district court found the ex-girlfriends credible, concluded Pillault took overt steps toward executing the threat, prioritized public protection concerns, and recommended institutional treatment; Pillault appealed the enhancement and sentence as unreasonable and as violating Tapia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pillault) | Defendant's Argument (Government / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2A6.1(b)(1) enhancement applies | No overt act substantially and directly connected to the threat; threats alone insufficient | Testimony showed overt acts (copper pipe purchase, Molotov testing) and intent to carry out threat | Affirmed — enhancement proper; district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous (credibility determination supported) |
| Whether 72‑month upward variance is substantively unreasonable | Sentence failed to account for online gaming context and provocation; circumstance should mitigate | Court weighed nature/severity of threats and public protection need over online forum; variance justified | Affirmed — variance reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether district court procedurally erred in explaining above‑Guidelines sentence | Court did not articulate fact‑specific reasons for the variance | Court provided fact‑specific oral and written reasons emphasizing public protection and defendant’s history | No procedural error — explanation adequate |
| Whether sentencing violated Tapia (relying on rehabilitation) | Court gave significant weight to need for mental‑health and substance‑abuse treatment, impermissibly lengthening sentence | Rehabilitation was a secondary justification; dominant factor was protection of the public and future dangerousness | No Tapia error — rehabilitation was not the dominant factor; sentence aimed at public protection |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Goynes, 175 F.3d 350 (5th Cir.) (overt act required for § 2A6.1(b)(1) enhancement)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (two‑step review for reasonableness of sentence)
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (courts may not lengthen sentence to promote rehabilitation)
- United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 2002) (guidance on de novo legal review and clear‑error factual review)
- United States v. Davis, 754 F.3d 278 (5th Cir.) (credibility determinations in sentencing are for the factfinder)
- United States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614 (5th Cir.) (post‑Tapia discussion distinguishing dominant vs. secondary rehabilitative considerations)
- United States v. Garza, 706 F.3d 655 (5th Cir.) (rehabilitation cannot be a dominant factor in sentencing)
- United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432 (5th Cir.) (standards for substantive‑reasonableness review)