TOMMASI

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Taylor, 88 F.3d 938 (11th Cir. 1996)
  …s of which depends upon the defendant’s intent and the likelihood that [he] would carry out the threat.” U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1, comment, (backg’d). Taylor argues that we should follow United States v. Hornick, 942 F. 2d 105 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1061, 112 S.Ct. 942, 117 L.Ed.2d 112 (1992), in which the Second Circuit held that only post-threat conduct evidence can be considered in determining whether to apply the § 2A6.1(b)(l) specific offense characteristic enhancement. We recently rejected the…
• United States v. Barbour, 70 F.3d 580 (11th Cir. 1995)
  …onduct in determining whether a defendant intended to carry out his or her threat. See United States v. Hines, 26 F. 3d 1469, 1474 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994). Barbour also refers us to United States v. Hornick, 942 F. 2d 105 (2nd Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1061, 112 S.Ct. 942, 117 L.Ed.2d 112 (1992), where the Second Circuit held that pre-threat conduct may not be used to support an enhancement under § 2A6.1(b)(l). We follow the Ninth Circuit in declining to follow Homick. See United States v. Hines, 26…