United States v. Joshua William Sanders

Opinion by Judge GOODWIN; Partial Dissent by Judge REINHARDT.

Joshua William Sanders appeals his conviction and sentence on two counts of mailing a threatening communication. 18 U.S.C. § 876 . He argues that the district court erred: (1) in concluding that his offense did not constitute a “single instance evidencing little or no deliberation,” U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(2); (2) in failing to notify him that it intended to reject the presentence report’s recommendation on § 2A6.1(b)(2); (3) in adding two points to his criminal history score for juvenile offenses; and (4) in inadequately informing him of the consequences of changing his plea. We affirm.

I.

In April, 1990, Sanders wrote two “letters” consisting almost entirely of racial epithets and derogatory language. He addressed the first of these letters to “N.I.G.G.E.R.S.” and mailed it to the Fairfield chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“the NAACP”). On the envelope, Sanders wrote ‘Watch out this might be a letter b_,” “die,” “go back to Africa,” and other derogatory remarks. In the letter itself, Sanders drew a caricature of an African-American person and wrote a variety of racial…

dissenting in part:

Unlike the defendant in Pacione, Joshua Sanders fails to present a particularly sympathetic figure. His threats were not the product of traumatic family illness, and his victim was not an insensitive IRS agent. Rather, Sanders was drunk and motivated by racial animosity. Although Sanders’ conduct may evoke considerably less compassion and pity than that of the Pacione defendant, he is equally deserving of a lawful sentence for his crime and a fair application of the sentencing guidelines to his criminal conduct.

I disagree with the majority’s and the district court’s conclusion that Sanders was not entitled to a four-level reduction in offense level at sentencing. In my opinion, the determination that Sanders’ illegal acts did not constitute a “single instance evidencing little or no deliberation” is based on a misinterpretation of § 2A6.1(b)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines.

I would point out preliminarily that our disagreement over the proper interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines in this case exemplifies the complexity inherent in applying the Guidelines, and the predicament that this complexity poses for defendants. The government’s presentence…

41 F.3d 480 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua William SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-10780. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 13, 1994. Decided Nov. 23, 1994. Ann C. McClintock, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Sacramento, CA, for defendant-appellant. Miguel Rodriguez, Asst. U.S. Atty., Sacramento, CA, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Before: GOODWIN, POOLE, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge GOODWIN; Partial Dissent by Judge REINHARDT. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge: 1 Joshua William Sanders appeals his conviction and sentence on two counts of mailing a threatening communication. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 876 . He argues that the district court erred: (1) in concluding that his offense did not constitute a "single instance evidencing little or no deliberation," U.S.S.G. Sec. 2A6.1(b)(2); (2) in failing to notify him that it intended to reject the presentence report's recommendation on Sec. 2A6.1(b)(2); (3) in adding two points to his criminal history score for juvenile offenses; and (4) in inadequately informing him of the consequences of changing…