Stephen Jay Thorn left a series of five threatening voicemails for a federal district judge after reading an online article criticizing one of her judicial opinions. To mask his identity, Thorn dialed *67 before each call. The messages escalated from vague threats against her children to specific threats naming her husband, their city, and their home address, stating it would be 'very easy to track you down.' A law clerk notified the judge, who reported the threats to the U.S. Marshals Service. Thorn was indicted for making an interstate threat to injure a federal official and for making phone calls with the intent to make a threat without disclosing his identity. He pleaded guilty to the interstate threat charge. The presentence investigation report calculated a guideline range of 24 to 30 months but noted Thorn's history of abuse, mental health issues, and financial insolvency as potential grounds for a downward variance. The district court, however, imposed a 60-month sentence, a 30-month upward variance, citing the terroristic nature of the conduct and the need for deterrence. Thorn appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the guidelines already accounted for the nature of the threats and the court undervalued his mitigating circumstances.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. The court addressed three main arguments raised by Thorn. First, Thorn argued that the district court improperly relied on factors already accounted for in the Guidelines, specifically the enhancements for multiple threats and targeting a government official. The court rejected this, noting that while the Guidelines provided a base range, district courts have broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to weigh factors like the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence more heavily than the guideline range suggests. The court found the district court adequately explained that Thorn's conduct was 'cruel' and 'terroristic' and involved premeditation, justifying the variance. Second, Thorn claimed the court failed to consider his age and health conditions. The court held that the district court did not need to specifically address every factor but must consider them. The record showed the court adopted the presentence report detailing Thorn's health and acknowledged his 'very tough life,' satisfying the requirement. Third, Thorn argued in his reply brief that other defendants received shorter sentences for similar conduct. The court dismissed this argument as waived because it was not raised in his initial brief. The court concluded that the district court did not commit a clear error of judgment and that the sentence was not arbitrary.
Thorn's conviction and 60-month sentence remain in effect. The decision reinforces the authority of district courts to impose significant upward variances in cases involving threats against federal judges, even when the Guidelines range is lower. It clarifies that a defendant's personal history does not automatically preclude a high sentence if the court finds the conduct sufficiently serious and premeditated. The ruling also establishes that arguments regarding sentencing disparities must be raised in the initial brief to be considered on appeal.