Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (March 20, 2001)
Docket number: 99-50670
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/usa-vs-judd-18418337
Id. vLex: VLEX-18418337
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .
R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-51081 c/w Nos. 98-51217; 99-50038; 99-50040; 99-50041; 99-50045; 99-50296; 99-50446; 99-50447; 99-50449; 99-50450; 99-50511; 99-50670; 99-50780; 99-50819; 99-50830; 99-50845; 99-50846; 99-50847; 99-50848; 99-50851; 99-50933; 00-51324; 01-50003; 01-50004 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-98-CR-93-ALL March 19, 2001 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM: * Keith Judd was found guilty by a jury of two counts of mailing a threatening communication with the intent to extort money or something of value. See 18 U.S.C. § 876. He was sentenced to 210 monthsÂ’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, restitution to the victim in the amount of $20,000, and a special assessment of $200.Judd argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had an intent to extort with the mailing of postcards in 1997 which stated “Send the money back now, Keith Judd, Last Chance or Dead.” He also contends that the 1997 package containing a semen stained Playboy, a knife inside the magazine, a key chain, and his fatherÂ’s military discharge papers did not show an intent to extort and did not constitute a threat.Judd further argues that the district court committed sentencing errors when it 1) increased Judd§ 2A6.1(b)(1); 2) increased Judd§ 2A6.1(b)(2); 3) upwardly departed five levels based upon the extreme psychological harm to the victim and Judd§§ 5K2.3 & 5K2.8, p.s.; 4) upwardly departed an additional five levels because Judd§ 5K2.0; and 5) increased Judd§ 4A1.3. Viewing the record in a light most favorable to the verdict, we find that there was sufficient evidence establishing that Judd had an intent to extort money with the mailing of the 1997 postcards and the package mailed to the victim and that the mailing of the package constituted a threat. See United States v. Duhon , 565 F.2d 345, 351 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Lance , 536 F.2d 1065, 1068 (5th Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Bell , 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982)(en banc), affÂ’d , 462 U.S. 356 (1983).The district court§ 2A6.1(b)(1) was proper. See United States v. Goynes , 175 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court§ 2A6.1(b)(2) was proper. See United States v. Brock , 211 F.3d 88, 90-92 (4th Cir. 2000). The district court§ 2A6.1(b)(1) and (2) enhancements. Judd§ 5K2.3, p.s. and § 5K2.8, p.s. is without merit. The district court§ 5K2.0 enhancement is without merit. Furthermore, the district court sufficiently stated reasons for increasing Judd§ 4A1.3; United States v. Lambert , 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993 (en banc). Finally, the multiple enhancements resulting in JuddÂ’s sentencing range being several times greater than the range determined by the presentence report did not indicate error with JuddÂ’s sentencing. See United States v. Daughenbaugh , 49 F.3d 171, 174-75 (5th Cir. 1995). JuddÂ’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.Judd has filed numerous notices of appeal and motions in this court. A number of those appeals have either been stricken or consolidated with the instant appeal, and Judd has been directed to file one brief addressing all his issues with his conviction. To the extent that there are appeals from the district court criminal case docketed as 98-CR-93-ALL not yet consolidated, those appeals are now CONSOLIDATED with the instant appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 3(b). All motions currently pending in this court pertaining to JuddÂ’s appeal of his criminal case are DENIED. No. 98-51081 c/w Nos. 98-51217; 99-50038; 99-50040; 99-50041; 99-50045; 99-50296; 99-50446; 99-50447; 99-50449; 99-50450; 99-50511; 99-50670; 99-50780; 99-50819; 99-50830; 99-50845; 99-50846; 99-50847; 99-50848; 99-50851; 99-50933; 00-51324; 01-50003; 01-50004Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access