U.S. v. Walsh

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing 71-year old defendant to life sentence on bank robbery and related firearm charges, even though Dist. Ct. initially indicated at sentencing hearing that it intended to impose 156-month term of incarceration on said charges prior to defendant uttering profanity-laced rant that included threats to sentence judge and his family that resulted in continuance of sentencing hearing and ultimate imposition of life sentence two hearings later. Instant life sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of defendant’s extensive criminal history and his stated commitment to life-long criminality and violence directed at sentencing judge and his family. Moreover, imposition of life sentence was not that much longer than initial intended sentence given defendant’s life expectancy at age 71. Also, Dist. Ct. did not commit clear error in denying defendant’s motion for recusal based on threats made to Dist. Ct., where: (1) there was no evidence of actual bias of sentencing judge; and (2) imposition of life sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly have found that defendant’s threats were made in effort to delay or derail defendant’s sentencing, and that defendant did not have capacity to carry out threats. (Dissent filed.)