United States v. Linda Horton, 671 F. App'x 330

Linda Gail Horton pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) without a plea agreement.
At the robbery Horton gave a note to a teller demanding money and stating she had a bomb.
The Presentence Investigation Report did not state whether the victim experienced fear of death.
The probation officer applied a two-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) for making a threat of death.
Horton argued the enhancement should not apply because the record did not show the victim actually feared death and sought a downward departure on that basis.
Horton did not formally object to the enhancement in district court, so appellate review proceeded under the plain-error standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) enhancement applies for Horton’s bomb note	Horton: enhancement requires that a reasonable victim would very likely believe a death threat was made and likely feared for life; PSI lacks fear finding	Government: the note asserting a bomb is an objectively threatening statement that would cause a reasonable person to fear death in a robbery	Court: No plain error; statement that she had a bomb reasonably would cause a person to fear death, so enhancement was proper
Standard of review given no district objection	Horton: argues on substantive Guidelines application	Government: urges review for plain error because Horton failed to object	Court: Applied plain-error review and found no clear or obvious error

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (establishes procedural/substantive review framework for sentencing)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error standard for forfeited claims)
United States v. Soto-Martinez, 317 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. rule that enhancement applies when a reasonable person would fear death)
United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (discusses preserved vs. forfeited objections to sentencing enhancements)