NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0504n.06 Case No. 20-6128 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Nov 03, 2021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ) TENNESSEE ROBERT DOGGART, ) ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) BEFORE: SUTTON, Chief Judge; McKEAGUE and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. SUTTON, Chief Judge. Robert Doggart returns to our court for a third time. His prosecution stems from events in 2014 and 2015, when he grew convinced that a community of 40 Muslim families residing in upstate New York were surreptitiously running a terrorist training ground. He now challenges his 120-month sentence. We affirm. I. Doggart first crossed the FBI’s radar in 2015. After a failed run for Congress, he grew concerned about illegal immigration and terrorism. That concern evolved into a fixation with “jihadist camps,” which he suspected were operating on American soil. R.285 at 36. Doggart eventually focused on a group of Muslim families living in a community called Islamberg. He came to believe, baselessly, that the residents were plotting a terrorist attack on New York City. Case No. 20-6128, United States v. Doggart In an apparent attempt to recruit fellow travelers, he wrote on Facebook that Islamberg “must be utterly destroyed.” R.14 at 2; R.232 at 5. An FBI informant responded to his post. Doggart eventually told him on the phone that “those guys [have] to be killed. Their buildings need to be burnt down.” R.14 at 3. Doggart later showed the informant a map of the real estate he intended to burn, including the town’s mosque. Doggart tried to recruit others, too. He traveled to Nashville, Tennessee, and Greenville, South Carolina, to meet sympathizers. An FBI wiretap revealed that Doggart discussed the specifics of his plan multiple times with multiple people. He contacted prospective “gunners” on Facebook. Id. at 4. And he scheduled April 15, 2015, as the “drop dead” date for the plot. Id. at 3. On April 10, the FBI arrested him. Doggart tried to plead guilty twice. But the district court rejected the plea agreement each time. The court first rejected Doggart’s attempt to plead guilty to making a threat in interstate commerce on the ground that it lacked a sufficient factual basis. United States v. Doggart (Doggart I), 906 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2018). A jury convicted Doggart, and he appealed the resulting two-count verdict. Id. We reversed. The district court abused its discretion when it refused the plea deal, we reasoned, because it relied on the wrong definition of “threat.” Id. at 512. On remand, Doggart and the government entered a new plea agreement. United States v. Doggart (Doggart II), 947 F.3d 879, 882 (6th Cir. 2020). The district court rejected it on the ground that it was too lenient, and the court reinstated the jury verdict. Id. Doggart appealed anew. Id. The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals