*1 arbitration, and hold that ize classwide individually. proceed must
plaintiffs
IV. arbitration clause
The omission in this case did clause the survival did not parties that the clearly imply to have arbitration clause
intend for the effect, this court’s
post-expiration must parties that the indicates
precedent ba- on an individual arbitration
proceed Therefore, court’s denial
sis. Compel Motion to Dismiss and Hilltop’s is REVERSED.
Arbitration America,
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff-Appellee, (12-4445),
Douglas Brandon L. WRIGHT (12-4447), C. Ste-
L. Connor Baxter Anthony (12-44480), M.
vens Defendants-Appel-
Hayne (12-4493),
lants. 12-4448, 12-4445, 12-4447, 12-4493.
Nos. Appeals, States Court Circuit.
Sixth 4, 2013.
Argued: Dec. March 2014. and Filed:
Decided *5 Cleveland, Anthony J. Vegh,
ARGUED: M. Kevin Ohio, in 12-4445. Appellant for Office, Schad, Public Defender’s Federal 12-4447. Ohio, Cincinnati, Appellant for Nelson, Defender’s Federal Public L. Paul Appel- Michigan, for Office, Rapids, Grand Columbus, Belli, Dennis lant 12^4448. Duncan T. Ohio, in 12-4493. Appellant for Office, Attorney’s Brown, States BRIEF: ON Cleveland, OH, Appellee. for Cleveland, Ohio, Ap- for Anthony Vegh, J. Schad, Fed- Kevin M. in 12-4445. pellant Cincinnati, Office, Public Defender’s eral Ohio, Appellant for 12-4447. Paul L. All four defendants challenge now Nelson, Office, Federal Public application Defender’s enhancement, of the terrorism Rapids, Grand Michigan, Appellant for requires which that the offense be “calcu- Belli, Columbus, Ohio, 12-4448. Dennis lated to influence or affect the conduct of Appellant for 12-4493. Duncan T. coercion, intimidation or Brown, United Attorney’s Office, States or to retaliate against government con- Cleveland, OH, Appellee. for duct.” 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(A). Addi-
tionally, Wright challenges his enhance- CLAY, Before: COLE and ment Circuit leadership under U.S.S.G. Judges; BERTELSMAN, § 3Bl.l(c), District Judge.* Baxter challenges proce-
dural sentence, reasonableness of his COLE, J., delivered opinion challenges Stevens procedural both the regard with Wright, Defendants and the substantive reasonableness of his Baxter, Stevens, CLAY, J., sentence, in which including length of his su- BERTELSMAN, D.J., pervised concurred. release. unanimously We affirm CLAY, 417-19), J. (pp. delivered the sentences of and Ste- opinion of the court regard with Judges vens. Glay and Bertelsman also Hayne, Defendant in which affirm Hayne’s sentence, whereas Judge BERTELSMAN, D.J., concurred. Cole would Hayne’s vacate sentence and
remand for resentencing. Therefore, this opinion opinion is the of the court except OPINION as to section II.A.3. *6 COLE, Circuit Judge. 2012,
In I. April OVERVIEW Defendants-Appellants Douglas Wright, Baxter, Brandon Connor A. Background Factual Stevens, and Anthony Hayne were arrest- The following is a summary of key they ed after placed explosives at the base pertinent facts to appeal. Although bridge of a along Brecksville, Route in82 the district court engaged in extensive Ohio, and attempted to detonate them. fact-finding through briefing and held a to defendants, Unbeknownst explo- hearing on matters, sentencing some facts inert, sives were and one of their co-con- remained in dispute when the judgments spirators in was fact an FBI informant. were The following entered. summary All four pleaded defendants guilty to con- makes note of these disputes only they spiracy to use a weapon of mass destruc- may be to relevant resolving the issues on tion, 2332a(a)(2)(B) § (D), U.S.C. & at- appeal. tempt to weapon destruction, use of mass 2332a(a)(2)(B) (D), & aiding and In 2011, the fall Wright, Ste- abetting in malicious use explosives vens, to were involved to varying destroy a structure used in interstate com- extents with the Occupy Cleveland move- merce, 844(i). The district applied ment (“Occupy”), a political loose-knit a 12-level terrorism enhancement to each group protesting inequality. economic sentence, defendant’s pursuant to U.S.S.G. Some individuals affiliated with Occupy, § 3A1.4. including defendants, four briefly * Bertelsman, The Honorable William O. tucky, Dis- by designation. sitting Judge trict for the Eastern District of Ken- structure, be a “this would particular in Cleve- church abandoned moved into an ” they that if noted one.... Baxter good FBI sent a land. In October bridge, to attack a throughout were to informant —referred paid al- by placing “security on respond CHS, would as the proceedings district court [expletive] in the entire every bridge most an Oc- human source”—to for “confidential country.” He raised concerns also Cleveland. in downtown cupy protest in casual- attacking might result bridge potential- to watch instructed CHS day, created a the CHS On ties. assign- Through this activity. ly violent Wright agreeing and Baxter recording of Douglas Wright, ment, met the CHS gas batons and purchase retractable the other defendants. through Wright, contact—actual- through the CHS’s masks had intermittent the CHS Wright and agent. FBI ly an undercover Wright fall, time during which contact CHS, and, Baxter, the on some Wright, escalating po- in his interest discussed occasions, Stevens, met several times more protesting to from litical activities During this early April. March and late offered The CHS disruptive actions. explo- to obtain decided group period, jobs and occasional odd and Baxter scheme, in an for use undetermined sives work. then for their He paid them this decision was though precisely how Wright and Baxter contact little with dispute. The defen- remains reached February until November relentlessly the CHS recount dants to discuss Wright and the CHS met when explosives, purchase prodded during upcoming an plans protest Never- eventually acquiesced. they until and consid- Chicago summit NATO/G8 theless, investigation presentence Wright’s Ac- gear to use there. riot obtaining ered March, (“PSR”) that, indicates report him gave the CHS cording Wright, $200 explosives was obtaining C-4 “the idea of to ar- gear and offered purchase agreed partici- up,” Wright brought Baxter, and the range the sale. April explosives on a sale pate days and dis- a few later again met CHS refused previously although he had bombs, using stink possibility of cussed the *7 Wright did purchase. commit to the to in loca- various paint guns explosives, or the of characterization contest this not tions, casino in downtown including the objecting por- to in his memorandum facts the FBI decided point, At this Cleveland. of his PSR. tions between recording conversations begin to Baxter, CHS, Wright, April the defendants. the the CHS and On discussed, in a non- and Stevens met and be- significant conversation The next manner, tar- potential several committal CHS, Baxter oc- Wright, the and tween in the attack, bridge including for gets met to they when on curred March and Federal the area of Cleveland Flats from the gear riot arrange the sale of Center, Cen- Reserve, and Justice Fusion on The conversation contact. CHS’s suggest- Wright buildings downtown. ter portions, lengthy. In relevant was date Cuyahoga in the explosives submerging ed in a participating the three discussed cargo as detonating them and then River Chicago for protest group in “black block” if it group by. He asked the passed ships officers assaulting police of purposes the plan. on a “consensus” reach could protestors other non-violent protecting and made to drove, Eventually, decision the they As police aggression. Route base of the at the explosives the of “tak- use possibility the men discussed Brecksville, the Ohio part of bridge in Wright observed bridge,” and ing out a highway system. Again, state parties History B. Procedural dispute bridge who first suggested as a Baxter, Wright, Stevens, Hayne and target, who made final to proposal 3, 2012, were indicted May on on three attaek the bridge, and when sugges- charges: conspiracy to use a weapon of tions and decision-making ultimate oc- destruction mass and attempt to use a record, curred. The which tran- includes weapon destruction, of mass in viola- both scripts of several conversations between 2332a(a)(2)(B) tion of (D);& and aiding defendants, and CHS various does not abetting explosives malicious use of answer questions these destroy At a definitively. a structure used in interstate commerce, 844(i). motion hearing, agent an testifying FBI violation of defendants originally pleaded for the guilty. transcripts read from However, Hayne that, change entered a indicating plea April on Wright sug- July 25, 2012, on guilty subsequent- gested placing the C-4 under the bridge ly cooperated with prosecutors. On Octo- after the CHS Wright’s plan insisted ber and Stevens to attack cargo vessel would not work. changed pleas their guilty all on three The group explosives obtained on counts. As the indicated, district court April when the picked up Wright, CHS opted plead defendants guilty at least Stevens, Baxter, a new companion, part because they Hayne’s believed that Anthony Hayne, and drove them a mo- testimony effectively contradicted an en- tel to meet an agent pos- undercover FBI trapment defense. ing as an arms (Hayne dealer. had been The PSRs of four all calcu- defendants Wright, Baxter, contact with and Ste- lated their base offense levels as vens in October of 2011 and claims that added levels for terrorism enhance- Wright suggested they engage in vio- Additionally, ment. the PSRs recom- lent acts at However, that time. mended 2-level leadership enhancement
was not drawn into the bridge-bombing and a 2-level decrease for 29.) plot April until motel, At the both Baxter’s acceptance and Stevens’s agent delivered the group two C-4 inert responsibility. Before the sentencing explosive devices, as well as the riot gear hearings place, took the district court con- that Wright and Baxter had previously sidered various memoranda from the de- ordered, and showed the how to objecting fendants material their detonate the using devices a cellular PSRs and arguing that the terrorism en- phone. The next day, Wright, Baxter, hancement not apply, should among other *8 Stevens, Hayne, CHS, the and sixth matters. a The district court also held a individual hearing named pertaining Joshua Stafford to drove to the terrorism en- the hancement area under the and issued a bridge, placed the ex- memorandum opinion plosives and explaining at the order column, base support of a the en- hancement be applied and would to Wright, then absconded nearby to a restau- Baxter, and rant, Stevens. These three defen- they where attempted to detonate dants were on sentenced November the According bombs. to a contested re- 2012. port prepared by the explo- defendants’
sives even if expert, the C-4 had not been Hayne’s sentencing occurred several inert, the had used too little of it to days after his co-conspirators’. The cause anything more than damage minor court’s memorandum regarding the terror- to bridge’s the support piers. ism enhancement did not findings contain
407 terrorism,” provision directs guidelines the matter was Hayne, and to specific 2332b(g)(5). § sentencing. Al- us to 18 U.S.C. at any detail addressed sets 3A1.4, 2332b(g)(5) n. 1. Hayne’s § cmt. Section acknowledged court though the an offense to govern- requirements for for the forth two testifying assistance of terrorism: a federal crime ment, applying U.S.S.G. be considered it avoided first, for “calculated to departure a must be the offense § authorizes 5K1.1—which investigation govern- in an the of influence or affect conduct assistance” “substantial coercion, understanding or to by the intimidation ment prosecution —on conduct,” from the court and preclude would doing against so retaliate on other based includ- varying second, underlying downward must be act further eligible list of an enumerated factors. ed within violations of 18 This list includes offenses. chose to Ultimately, the district 844(i) (arson bombing of § U.S.C. to variances substantial downward apply commerce) and used in interstate property to 18 pursuant sentences all defendants’ (use weapons of mass destruc- § of 2332a 3553(a). is- memorandum § In U.S.C. tion). § 2332b(g)(5)(B)(i). 18 U.S.C. con- sentencing hearings sued after cluded, explained the court sentencing court to order for the In of on the basis vary downward opted enhancement, gov apply a terrorism explosives, nature of the inert of show a preponderance must ernment offense, and facilitating role CHS’s requirements the two evidence of the de- various individual characteristics met. See United § have been 2332b sentenced to fendants. (6th 464, 473 Layne, v. 324 F.3d States offense, signifi- each prison months Graham, 275 Cir.2003); States United range, guidelines which cantly below the (6th This court as 324 to 405 months. court calculated the terrorism in Graham that determined months received Baxter sentence applied to inchoate can be enhancement months, also well under Stevens offenses, attempt conspiracy. such as of 262 guidelines calculations court’s also, 516-17; e.g., see 275 F.3d months, respective- to 235 months and 188 Mandhai, 1247-48 States v. court ac- Hayne’s hearing, ly. At Graham). Cir.2004) ap This (citing ap- minimum that a 60-month knowledged the text with proach is consistent months, Hayne to 72 sentenced plied and 3A1.4(a), the enhance § which extends range of 262 guidelines down or [were] “that to felonies involved ment concurrent, All were months. sentences crime of a federal promote, intended also sentenced all defendants were terrorism,” application its rather than limit See 18 release. U.S.C. supervised lifetime listed substantive offenses only those 5D1.2(b)(l). 3583©; § § U.S.S.G. 2332b(g)(5)(B). U.S.S.G. 18 U.S.C. added). 3A1.4(a) (emphasis II. ANALYSIS Enhancement Under A. Terrorism legal review We *9 § 3A1.4 enhance of the terrorism interpretation novo, its factual we review de ment Sentencing of Guide- 3A1.4 Section v. States error. United findings for clear enhancement authorizes a 12-level lines (6th Cir.2007); 412, Fore, 414-15 F.3d involved, 507 or was felony that intended for “a Graham, “A factual at 275 F.3d 513-14. of crime terrorism.” federal to promote, when, although clearly erroneous finding of is crime phrase “federal To define the 408 2009) it,
there is support evidence to the review- (noting that a court is to consider the ing court on the entire evidence is left with “purpose” defendant’s or “motive” in com firm definite conviction that a offense). mis- mitting the agree We with this take has committed.” been United States interpretation and the general principles Tocco, (6th 279, Cir.2002) v. F.3d 306 284 developed by the courts that have followed (citation and internal quotation marks it. omitted). A defendant has the requisite in 2332b(g)(5)
1. Section Require- Intent tent if he or she acted with the purpose of ment influencing affecting government con dispute The defendants do not that they duct planned his or her actions with charged were with making offenses them objective in mind. Siddiqui, 699 F.3d eligible for the terrorism enhancement. 709; Stewart, at 590 F.3d 137. Long- Rather, argue that they government however, term planning, is not required. has not itsmet burden of showing that Siddiqui, F.3d at 699 709. Nor is it neces they “to intended influence or affect the sary that influencing be conduct government” of or “retaliate the defendant’s ultimate sole aim. against government conduct.” 18 U.S.C. Jayyousi, United v. 1085, States 657 F.3d § 2332b(g)(5)(A). Specifically, the defen- (11th Cir.2011); 1114-15 United States v. dants they, contend that as members of Awan, (2d 306, 607 F.3d 317 Occupy movement, sought to influence For example, a defendant who provided corporate disrupt behavior or the lives of material assistance to organiza terrorist percent” the “one but did not target tions, but claimed that goal was to government specifically. assist an oppressed Muslims, is
This court has
yet
addressed in de
eligible for the
regardless
enhancement
tail the meaning
phrase
of the
“calculated his purportedly
benign motive.
to influence or affect the
gov
conduct of
Jayyousi,
409
holding hearing
a
re-
after
this conclusion
judge’s
of a
bailiff—
firebombing the office
enhancement,
both
at which
necessary
garding
in-
the
the
that
illustrated
he
argument.
presented evidence and
sides
Id.
tent.
applica
upheld
have
circuits
Our sister
upon by
facts relied
We review the
to de
enhancement
of the terrorism
tion
look to the
court and
the district
also
or otherwise
sought
who
to bomb
fendants
a whole to determine whether
record as
See,
facilities.
target government
violently
error. See
the
committed clear
McDavid, 396 Fed.
v.
e.g.,
States
United
Herrera,
265 F.3d
v.
United States
(9th Cir.2010);
Terrorist
In re
Appx. 365
Cir.2001).
(6th
following facts
Africa,
E.
in
Embassies
Bombings U.S.
of
court’s determination.
support
(2d Cir.2008);
v.
United States
Hr’g, R.
Leadership Enhancement
Wright’s
B.
explicitly
discredit
court did
district
3Bl.l(c)
Under
had,
we would
testimony, though,
it
credibility deter-
to such a
deference
show
2-
appeals the district
Wright
at 452.
Esteppe, 483 F.3d
mination.
of-
role in the
level enhancement for
leader, manager, or
evidence,
organizer,
an
is not clear
fense as
light
In
of this
activity. U.S.S.G.
supervisor of criminal
at its conclu-
court arrived
how
3Bl.l(c). Wright’s
ing leadership by
PSR recommended
a preponderance of the
Vandeberg,
on the basis that
evidence.
1. Baxter’s Claim of Following the ob reasonableness may merely jection, “the court not sum pro- his sentence is argues Baxter marily adopt findings the factual cedurally because the district unreasonable presentence report simply declare that objections to address various court failed supported by preponder the facts are a purported inaccuracies he raised to Rather, ance of the evidence. that correction of these PSR. He claims affirmatively court must rule on contro errors would have led the district court potentially verted matter where it could determine that the terrorism enhancement (in impact the defendant’s sentence.” Id. Specifically, object- Baxter apply. did marks omit quotation ternal citations and incorrectly identified ed PSR Vanhoose, ted); see also States v. 28, 2012, date March as the when the (6th Cir.2011). 446 Fed.Appx. target bridge decided to and erro- requires the court’s “literal com Rule 32 neously person described him as “the first White, 492 at 415. pliance.” Howev fur- blowing up bridge.” to mention He er, subject are Rule 32 errors harmless objected ther that the PSR omitted facts *15 review, whereby may error a sentence demonstrating badgered that the CHS only reviewing court stand the is “cer agreeing purchase Baxter into to the of C- tain that the error did not cause the defen explosives, ultimately 4 that the CHS se- to a dant receive more severe sentence.” bridge target, lected the as the and that Quail, Fed.Appx. United States v. Baxter was not involved in the decision to (6th Cir.2013) (citing United States v. bridge on use C-4 the Route 82 but (6th Roberge, 565 F.3d Cir. along plan went with the that others had 2009)). Lastly, objected concocted. he to the PSR’s determination argu We first address Baxter’s bombing was the intended victim of the ment the court failed to resolve factu alleged scheme. Baxter addressed the disputes regarding al role in CHS’s discrepancies in a memorandum filed with- facilitating the offense. claim This fails days receiving in fourteen the PSR. See first, for two reasons: the court heard 32(f)(1). Fed.R.Crim.P. He also raised testimony argument regarding objections sentencing, same to which hearing place CHS’s conduct at a that took “Very replied, the court well. Those ob- second, sentencing, before the court jections have been considered and are de- repeatedly stated that it did not believe nied.” responsible to be for the the CHS defen actions, Baxter further particularly light claims that the dants’ of their court comply guilty. failed to with Federal Rule of to At plead decision the aforemen 32(i)(3)(B), hearing, Criminal Procedure the court responded which tioned to a states, sentencing, the court: ... questioning regarding “[a]t line of the CHS’s any disputed portion pre- must—for observing role the defendants “did report sentence or other controverted mat not of entrapment” follow defense dispute ter —rule on the or determine that then that the case commented “[was] Nevertheless, ruling unnecessary a is because the matter about the CHS’s record.” sentencing, will not affect or explicitly because cited the CHS’s con explaining grant court will not consider the matter in sen duct in its decision tencing.” Rule a requires departure defendant to Baxter a substantial downward record, objections raise during sentencing guidelines range. from the indicates) the first defendant then, graph the court considered establishes targeting bridge; re- a nor did it but did not mention generally role the CHS’s regarding find that Baxter disputes require factual the court to specific solve any statements because participated actions and discussion which the CHS’s rele- definitively adopted. discrete issues bridge it did not find these scheme was sentencing. whole, Fed. Baxter’s a vant In the context of the record as 32(i)(3)(B); see also United respond R.Crim.P. the district court’s failure to Darwich, objections specific States Baxter’s factual Cir.2003) (“[Controverted at sen- matters because we are assured that harmless require ruling disput- if the tencing only did not receive a more severe sen- Baxter sen- matter will affect the eventual ed as a result. tence tence.”). objection As for Baxter’s last —to charac- objected Baxter also various govern the PSR’s characterization of the plot, in the of his own role terizations ment as the offense’s victim—we find that group’s to the his contributions specifically adequately the court addressed this matter explosives and to acquire C-4 decision hearing by holding regarding the terror cor- bridge. the Route 82 Baxter target by issuing 36-page ism enhancement and issue rectly notes that the court did not opinion concluding memorandum that both findings rulings or on these fac- particular supported applica the law and the facts its It not reach a clear disputes. tual did serves to ensure that a court tion. Rule 32 suggested first determination as to who “summarily adopt the factual does not un- explosives planting them purchasing simply declare that findings in the PSR *16 exactly deci- bridge, or when these der the by preponder supported the facts are made, were as its recitation sions Vanhoose, 446 Fed. ance of the evidence.” sentencing in Baxter’s memorandum facts (citation omitted). The dis Appx. at 769 may court have deter- illustrates. The in the ter applying trict court did neither objections were irrele- mined that these Baxter’s sentence is rorism enhancement. example, enough that evidence vant —for affirmed. irrespective of Baxter’s intent existed neglected say to disputed facts—but Procedural and 2. Stevens’s Claim of as much. Substantive Unreasonableness court
Nevertheless,
claims that
the court’s error
Stevens
Quail,
calculated his sentence
Fed.Appx.
improperly
was harmless. See
terrorism en-
563; Darwich,
erroneously applied
F.3d at 666. Even
at
hancement,
resulting
procedurally
in a
in
disputes
factual
had been resolved
these
substantively unreasonable sentence.
favor,
have
Baxter’s
the court still would
be
argument appears
first
to
Stevens’s
enough
apply
evidence to
the terror
improperly
court
simply that the district
In its memorandum
ism enhancement.
it did not
his sentence because
of the enhance
calculated
explaining
applicability
minimum re-
only the 60-month
impose
indi
to
and Stevens
ment
844(i).
§
by 18
Stevens
ample
quired
evi
U.S.C.
vidually,
pointed
the court
to
the district court
argue
in
that
dispute
does not
that Baxter did
dence
3553(a)
§
factors
for the
failed to account
objections to the
The court’s decision
PSR.
facts.
the sentence on erroneous
way
rested
or based
apply the enhancement
no
Gall,
51,
vens’s agent. FBI But out to be an undercover delivered more than bombs—he agent
III. CONCLUSION vests, smoke also ballistic gave *18 gas Wright masks that and grenades, and Baxter, Wright, of The sentences previously ordered. The next Baxter had For the reasons Stevens are affirmed. day, Hayne acted as lookout while his co- Judge Clay’s opinion, in the addressed sup- on a planted the bombs defendants Hayne’s court also affirms sentence. bridge. Once port column of the Route told planted, had been Stevens the devices OPINION biggest act of ter- the others “This is the CLAY, concurring part in Judge, Circuit the 1960s.” since rorism Cleveland announcing judgment the as to 3394.) Hayne Sentencing Op. at (Hayne ANTHONY HAYNE. Defendant to an then drove and his codefendants the up to blow Judge Applebee’s attempted I that Defen- agree with Cole bridge. qualify dants and Stevens facts, if
Based on these
the district court
site intent
he or she acted with the
applied
purpose
influencing
affecting govern-
of
or
clearly
did not
err when
the
planned
ment conduct and
his or her ac-
enhancement
of U.S.S.G.
terrorism
objective
Supra
tions with this
in mind.”
Hayne.
briefly
§
To
summarize
3A1.4 to
require
standard, §
408. We do
this intent
applicable
applies
3A1.4
(1)
only
purpose
be the defendant’s
commit-
categories of
two
offenses:
felonies
ting
long
the offense. So
as the defendant
... a
“involved
federal crime of terror-
(2)
govern-
intended to influence to conduct of
ism”; and
felonies that were “intended
ment,
ap-
the terrorism enhancement will
promote!
a federal crime of terrorism.”
]
ply even
the defendant also harbored
statutory
definition
“federal
crime
motivations,
an
gain
other
such as
intent to
elements,
of terrorism” has two
and the
impress
financial
a
reward
sweetheart.
government
by
must
pre-
establish both
Awan,
See United States v.
607 F.3d
(1)
ponderance of the evidence:
the of-
(2d Cir.2010).
316-18
fense must be
“calculated
influence
government by
affect the conduct of
intim-
The specific intent standard we an-
coercion,
idation or
against
or to retaliate
today
legal
nounce
is a
concerning
issue
(2)
conduct;”
government
the offense
proper
construction of the Guideline
be one of
must
the crimes listed
However,
and the statute.
whether a de-
§ 2332b(g)(5).
statute. 18 U.S.C.
“actually
fendant
harbored such an intent
question
is a
of fact.” United States v.
category
applica-
The first
3A1.4 is
(6th Cir.2003).
Reaume,
338 F.3d
ble to cases like the one before us now—
We
finding
review
court’s
cases where the crimes of conviction are
requisite
intent existed for clear error.
among
found
the enumerated terrorism of-
Graham,
513-14,
See
niqué for the defen need not wait
district court intent to influ specific to confess a
dant The court can find government.
ence on circumstantial evi
this intent based inferences
dence and reasonable supra at 408-10. presented.
facts
The record in this case establishes coconspirators were en
Hayne knew vio larger in a scheme of terrorist
gaged this, Hayne decided to Knowing
lence. up Route
join conspiracy to blow court did not bridge. The district Hayne
clearly err when it determined or affect
personally intended to influence by destroying government
the conduct of infrastruc major piece El-Mezain, 664 States v.
ture. See United (5th Cir.2011); 467, 571 United States
F.3d (4th Hammoud, Cir.
v.
2004), grounds, 543 U.S. vacated on other 125 S.Ct. 160 L.Ed.2d Mandhai,
(2005); v. United States 1243, 1248 reasons, the district court’s
For these AFFIRMED.
sentence of is DEMYANOVICH,
Alan Plaintiff-
Appellant, COATINGS, PLATING &
CADON al.,
L.L.C. et Defendants-
Appellees.
No. 13-1015. Appeals, States Court of
Sixth Circuit.
Argued: Nov. 2013. 28, 2014.
Decided and Filed: March