United States v. Yilmaz, 910 F.3d 686

Defendant Tolga Safer Yilmaz pled guilty to one count of stalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A and was sentenced to 37 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release.
From 2009 to 2016 Yilmaz repeatedly harassed and threatened a former college acquaintance (the Victim), sending roughly 10,694 emails to the Victim and third parties over ~7 years.
In Spring 2016 Yilmaz traveled from Turkey toward the Victim in New York; he was apprehended in Portland and prosecuted in the Southern District of New York.
The district court applied a four-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2(b)(1) based on (1) threatened use of a dangerous weapon and (2) a pattern of stalking/threatening the same victim.
On appeal Yilmaz challenged (a) the two-level enhancement for threatened use of a dangerous weapon (he argued no weapon displayed and victim did not credibly perceive a weapon threat) and (b) that his 37‑month sentence was disparate compared with sentences for similarly situated defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of § 2A6.2 enhancement for threatened use of a dangerous weapon	Court/Prosecution: the Guidelines allow enhancement when offense involved threatened use of a dangerous weapon; threats invoking knives suffice	Yilmaz: no weapon was displayed and the victim did not perceive or find the threat credible	Affirmed: threatened use alone suffices; Yilmaz's explicit violent threats (e.g., to "slice" or "cut [her] throat") implied a knife and meet the enhancement; victim perception not required
Substantive reasonableness / sentence disparity	Court/Prosecution: sentence within Guidelines and reasonable given severity, duration, and harm	Yilmaz: 37-month sentence is incongruous with sentences of similarly situated defendants	Affirmed: 37 months falls within permissible range; district court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and harms inflicted

United States v. Mingo, 340 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (plain language of Guidelines provision controls; threatened use qualifies)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary is authoritative absent inconsistency with law)
United States v. Thavaraja, 740 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (procedural error includes mistakes in Guidelines calculation; deference to sentencing court)
United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (trial court's sentencing decision reviewed for being within permissible range)
United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011) (example of threat to "blow [victim's] head off" as prototypical weapon threat)
United States v. Lee, 790 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2015) (upholding lengthy sentence for extensive threatening electronic communications)
United States v. Ull, [citation="370 F. App'x 225"] (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming prison sentence for large-volume harassment messages)