US v. William White

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cr-00013-JCT-1. [999731486]. [14-4375]

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 1 of 44

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4375

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM A. WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cr-00013-JCT-1)

Argued:

October 29, 2015

Decided:

January 7, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Motz and Judge King joined.

ARGUED: Paul Graham Beers, GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
Laura Day Rottenborn, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Anthony P. Giorno, United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia,
Jennifer
R.
Bockhorst,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 2 of 44

THACKER, Circuit Judge:
William

White

(“MW”) owed him money.

(“Appellant”)

believed

his

ex-wife

When she refused to pay, he sent her a

series of e-mails, four of which threatened violence if MW did
not

meet

his

demands.

MW

reported

the

threats

to

the

authorities, and Appellant was eventually charged in a fourcount indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. § 875(b), which makes
it a felony to transmit threats in interstate commerce with the
intent to extort.
the

charged

After trial, a jury convicted him of three of

§ 875(b)

counts,

and

one

count

of

the

lesser-

included offense of transmitting a threat (without the intent to
extort), in violation of § 875(c).

The district court sentenced

Appellant to a 92–month term of imprisonment.
Appellant now asks us to reverse his conviction and
vacate his sentence, assigning a number of errors.

He maintains

he could not have intended to extort MW because she owed him a
legitimate debt and alleges more generally that the district
court misinstructed the jury on the mens rea requirements for
conviction pursuant to § 875(b) and (c).

He also complains that

the use of an anonymous jury at his trial was improper; asserts
that the district court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence;
challenges
him;

and

the

sufficiency

disputes

both

of

the

the

reasonableness of his sentence.

evidence

procedural

presented
and

against

substantive

We are not persuaded that any
2

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 3 of 44

of Appellant’s arguments undermine the jury’s verdict or the
district court’s sentence.

We therefore affirm the district

court’s judgment for the reasons that follow.
I.
A.
This is not Appellant’s first brush with the law for
making threats, and his prior misadventures set the stage for
this case.

In 2010, he was charged in the Western District of

Virginia for making a threatening telephone call to a university
administrator
tenants

in

and

sending

Roanoke

who

against their landlord.

intimidating

had

filed

a

letters

fair

to

housing

several
complaint

A jury convicted him, and the district

court imposed a 30-month term of imprisonment.
While
with

his

he

was

now-ex-wife,

incarcerated,
MW,

Appellant’s

deteriorated.

relationship

They

eventually

separated and MW agreed 1 to pay alimony to Appellant.
the first two payments in March and April of 2012.

She made
Around the

same time, in March 2012, we upheld Appellant’s conviction on
appeal,

but

remanded

the

case

for

resentencing.

See

United

States v. White, 670 F.3d 498, 502-03, 515-16 (4th Cir. 2012).

1

MW claims the agreement was informal and never actually
finalized.
But whether Appellant and MW formed a valid
separation agreement is immaterial to our analysis.

3

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 4 of 44

Appellant was out of prison and on supervised release
by that time, so the district court set a resentencing hearing
for May 14, 2012.

Appellant didn’t show.

Instead, he fled,

absconding to Mexico with an acquaintance named Sabrina Gnos.
When MW learned Appellant was on the lam, she stopped making the
alimony payments, at least in part because she feared that doing
so would amount to aiding a fugitive.

Appellant’s subsequent

attempts to persuade MW to resume making the payments form the
basis of the indictment in this case.
Appellant sent MW the following messages, which form
Counts I, II, and III of the indictment at issue here, between
May 27th and May 29th:
May 27, 2012 (Count I):
I’ve had an offer
from a loan shark in Roanoke to split the
money you owe me 50/50.
He will send
someone to beat your ass if you don’t pay,
and I will give him half for that service.
I would rather we found some way to
peacefully
work
things
out
so
I
had
continuing contact with my daughter and you
faced up to your obligations to me.
If I
don’t hear from you soon, I will just let
the guy know you owe me $500 and let him
take care of it.
If you won’t face up to
what you’ve done, someone has to hold you
accountable.
May 28, 2012 (Count II): If I were to allow
myself to be arrested, you have proven that
you will take [our daughter] from me forever
and that the federal government will assist
you with this. So, rather than be arrested,
I will remain free, and if you attempt you
are going to have the living shit beat out
of you -- to start with. You don’t seem to
4

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 5 of 44

have any sense of right or wrong and only
seem to respond to the threat of legal or
physical force.
The things you do upset a
lot of people, and I have a lot of friends
who think nothing of taking out on you the
things you have done to me.
May 29, 2012 (Count III):
Later on someone
will be in touch with you.
You owe me two
alimony payments and $85 in fees, which is
being
called
$500.
I
would
strongly
recommend you have the $500 when you are
contacted
-or
you
will
probably
be
hospitalized.
J.A. 17-18. 2
Appellant also asked Gnos for help finding someone in
Virginia to pressure MW into making the payments.

On June 2,

2012, Gnos, who was by that time cooperating with the Federal
Bureau

of

Investigation

(“FBI”),

recorded

the

following

conversation:
GNOS:
Ah, you said you wanted, you wanted
to start off with a phone call and see how
that works. Are you . . .
APPELLANT:
I think that’s probably best,
um, I mean, that’s easiest.
You said you
didn’t know anybody that would actually go
there and just tell her to give them the
fucking money.
J.A. 730.

The following day brought more of the same:
APPELLANT:
working on
there.

I assume you’re
the deal with my

2

still, ah,
ex-wife up

Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed
by the parties in this appeal.

5

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

GNOS:

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 6 of 44

Yeah, it’s not that easy.

APPELLANT:
Honestly, it is really easy.
Right now you just need to find someone to
get on the phone and pick up, pick up a
throw phone and call her up and say you’re
gonna pay the fucking money or I’m gonna
fuck you up.
Id. at 733.

Appellant followed up again on June 4th:

APPELLANT:
So, anyways, but, yeah, ah,
well, I just thought I’d, ah, check in with
you.
Have you got any solution for getting
some money out of my ex-wife?
GNOS:
No I’ve been sick.
I haven’t been
talking to anybody on the phone.
APPELLANT:
All right, well, it’s kind of
important. . . . I’m not kidding.
You can
probably pay somebody ten bucks to just
scream some fucking obscenities into the
phone and get what she, get five hundred
bucks out of her. But I do need somebody to
lean on her and get that money, so, if you
can’t do it, I got to talk to somebody else
up there.
Id. at 737.
Finally, on June 7, 2012, after Gnos failed to find a
solution,

the

indictment

alleges

Appellant

sent

MW

warning, charged in Count IV:
June 7, 2012 (Count IV): I would very much
like to avoid an incident in which something
violent potentially happens to you around
the baby.
Will you make some agreement to
settle the issues with the money and with my
access to my daughter? If I don’t hear from
you within 24 hours, then what follows will
be on you -I’ve done everything I can to
work this out peacefully.
6

a

final

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 7 of 44

J.A. 18.
The

following

day,

June

8,

2012,

Appellant

was

arrested in Mexico and eventually deported to the United States.
On February 7, 2013, he was indicted in the Western District of
Virginia and charged with four counts of violating 18 U.S.C.
§ 875(b)

on

the

basis

of

the

e-mails

set

forth

above.

As

relevant here, the statute penalizes “[w]hoever, with intent to
extort from any person . . . any money . . ., transmits in . . .
foreign

commerce

any

communication

containing

. . . injure the person of another[.]”

any

threat

to

18 U.S.C. § 875(b).

B.
Before

trial,

Appellant

moved

to

dismiss

the

indictment, arguing that it failed as a matter of law because he
had a legal right to the alimony payments he demanded.
district court denied the motion.
and

over

Appellant’s

objection,

The

At the Government’s request,
the

case

proceeded

to

trial

before an anonymous jury.
At trial, Gnos testified in detail about Appellant’s
activities

during

his

escape

to

Mexico.

She

noted

that

Appellant frequently used a Toshiba laptop during the trip and
that Appellant explained he was using software to disguise the
computer’s

Internet

Protocol

(“IP”)

address.

Gnos

also

testified that, after she returned to Virginia, she continued to

7

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 8 of 44

communicate with Appellant, check his mail, and wire him money.
At her father’s urging, Gnos explained, she eventually contacted
authorities
with

and

agreed

Appellant.

The

to

record

Government

her

telephone

played

conversations

several

of

those

recordings for the jury, including the clips from early June,
described above, in which Appellant repeatedly asked Gnos to
find someone to lean on MW so that she would resume making the
disputed

alimony

payments.

The

court

also

received

into

evidence a handwritten note Gnos made of a call with Appellant,
which had not been recorded.

According to Gnos’s note, the

tenor of the call was much like the others; Appellant told her,
“OK - if phone call dont [sic] work - we will have to have
someone fuck her up!”

J.A. 727.

Other testimony implicated Appellant as the author of
the e-mails charged in the indictment.
testified

that

the

e-mails

to

MW

FBI Agent David Church

originated

from

an

e-mail

address, [e-mail], that Appellant had previously used.
Church also explained that Appellant bragged on his Facebook
account of using an IP anonymizer much like the technology Gnos
testified Appellant had described to her.

And Church testified

that Appellant’s Facebook account registered activity very near
in time to the moments when threatening e-mails were sent to MW,
and that both the Facebook activity and e-mails originated from
the same (albeit anonymized) IP address.
8

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 9 of 44

MW testified that the e-mails made her fearful for her
safety

and

the

safety

of

her

daughter.

For

example,

she

testified that, after receiving the May 27, 2012 e-mail, she
went to the local police station to ask for a protective order.
She

also

shared

the

e-mails

with

the

United

States

Marshals

Service and the FBI, and took care not to travel alone whenever
possible until Appellant had been captured.
Appellant

took

the

stand

in

his

own

defense.

He

testified he did not send MW any of the e-mails identified in
the indictment, suggesting instead that Gnos was responsible.
The jury deliberated for just over three hours, but ultimately
rejected Appellant’s version of events, finding him guilty of
violating § 875(b) when he sent the May 27th, May 29th, and June
7th e-mails; the jury also convicted Appellant of the lesserincluded-offense of violating § 875(c) on the basis of the May
28th e-mail.
The

Probation

Department

thereafter

prepared

a

Presentence Report (“PSR”) that recommended a sentence of 92-115
months, based on a total offense level of 26 and a criminal
history category of IV.

Appellant’s offense level was enhanced

by two points for obstruction of justice as a result of his
trial testimony, and the PSR opined that Appellant’s counts of
conviction were not subject to grouping pursuant to § 3D1.2(d)
of

the

United

States

Sentencing
9

Guidelines

(“Guidelines”).

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Appellant
downward

Filed: 01/07/2016

objected

to

departure

the

from

Pg: 10 of 44

enhancement

the

and

recommended

also

requested

Guidelines

a

sentence.

The district court denied Appellant’s objection and sentenced
him to a 92-month term of imprisonment, at the low end of the
Guidelines range.
II.
Appellant raises several issues on appeal, attacking
each

stage

of

his

prosecution.

The

heart

of

his

appeal,

however, concerns the legal requirements for conviction pursuant
to § 875(b) and (c).
him

was

legally

dismissed)

Appellant claims the indictment against

deficient

because

he

(and

could

therefore

not

have

should

intended

have

to

“extort”

alimony payments to which he was legally entitled.
maintains

the

jury

was

improperly

elements of § 875(b) and (c).

instructed

on

been

He also

the

intent

We review both issues de novo.

See United States v. Said, 798 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2015)
(“We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to
dismiss

an

indictment

where

the

denial

depends

solely

on

questions of law.”); United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332,
351 (4th Cir. 2012) (“We review de novo the claim that a jury
instruction failed to correctly state the applicable law.”).
Sections 875(b) and 875(c) both prohibit transmitting
“in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing
any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the
10

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

person

of

Filed: 01/07/2016

another.”

18

Pg: 11 of 44

U.S.C.

§ 875(b)

and

(c).

The

distinction between the two is that § 875(b) is violated only
when such a threat is transmitted with the specific intent to
extort something of value, whereas § 875(c) says nothing about
the speaker’s intent.

Appellant’s challenges to his § 875(b)

convictions turn on the meaning of “intent to extort.”
appeal

of

depends

his

on

§ 875(c)

the

conviction,

application

of

which

the

His

we

consider

first,

Supreme

Court’s

recent

decision in Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015).
A.
Section 875(c)
1.
We have previously held § 875(c) is violated if (1)
the defendant knowingly communicates a statement in interstate
commerce that (2) contains a “true threat” that is not protected
by the First Amendment.
498,

508-10

(4th

Cir.

See United States v. White, 670 F.3d
2012)

(discussing

collecting those of other circuits).
a

“true

threat”

reasonable

in

recipient

the
who

prior

cases

and

And we have explained that

constitutional
is

our

familiar

sense
with

is

the

one

that

a

circumstances

would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm.
See id.

But because the text of § 875(c) does not articulate

any additional intent requirements, we have repeatedly held that
neither the statute nor the Constitution requires the Government
11

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 12 of 44

to prove that a defendant subjectively intended the recipient of
the communication to understand it as threatening.

See, e.g.,

United States v. Darby, 37 F.3d 1059, 1066 (4th Cir. 1994);
White, 670 F.3d at 509-11.

That is how the district court

instructed the jury in this case.

Appellant maintains that to

do so was error in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in
Elonis.
In Elonis the Supreme Court asked “whether [§ 875(c)]
. . . requires that the defendant be aware of the threatening
nature of the communication, and -- if not -- whether the First
Amendment requires such a showing.”
The

Court

“requires

began
that

a

by

explaining

communication

Elonis, 135 S. Ct. at 2004.
that

be

the

text

transmitted

of
and

§ 875(c)
that

the

communication contain a threat,” but acknowledged, as we have
previously

observed,

that

no

“mental

state

th[ose] elements” is otherwise specified.

with

respect

Id. at 2008.

to
The

Court nevertheless explained that the “‘mere omission from a
criminal enactment of any mention of criminal intent’ should not
be

read

Morissette

‘as
v.

dispensing
United

with

it.’”

States,

342

Id.
U.S.

at

2009

(quoting

246,

250

(1952)).

Instead, because courts “generally interpret[] criminal statutes
to include broadly applicable scienter requirements, even where
the statute by its terms does not contain them,” id. (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted; alteration in original),
12

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 13 of 44

the Court found it appropriate to “read into the statute only
that mens rea which is necessary to separate wrongful conduct
from

otherwise

innocent

conduct,”

id.

at

2010

(internal

quotation marks omitted).
Turning to § 875(c), the Court emphasized “the crucial
element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct is the
threatening nature of the communication.”

See Elonis, 135 S.

Ct. at 2011 (internal quotation marks omitted).

As a result,

the

convicted

Court

concluded,

a

defendant

may

not

be

of

violating § 875(c) based “solely on how his [words] would be
understood

by

a

reasonable

person,”

because

doing

so

would

impermissibly allow “criminal liability” to “turn solely on the
results of an act without considering the defendant’s mental
state.”

See id. at 2011-12.

Instead, the Court held that to

violate § 875(c), a defendant must transmit “a communication for
the purpose of issuing a threat, or with knowledge that the
communication will be viewed as a threat,” or, possibly, with
reckless

disregard

for

the

likelihood

would be perceived as a threat.
Court’s

holding

in

Elonis

was

Id.
purely

that

the

communication

But, importantly, the
statutory;

and,

having

resolved the question on statutory grounds, the Court declined
to address whether a similar subjective intent to threaten is a
necessary component of a “true threat” for purposes of the First

13

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Amendment.

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 14 of 44

See id. at 2012 (“Given our disposition, it is not

necessary to consider any First Amendment issues.”).
Thus,
liability
would

Elonis

under

interpret

abrogates

§ 875(c)
a

can

our

turn

statement,

solely

without

speaker intended it as a threat.

prior

holding

on

how

regard

to

a

that

recipient

whether

the

Contra White, 670 F.3d at 508

(“[B]ecause the threat element is not part of the mens rea, it
becomes an element of the crime that must be established without
consideration of the defendant’s intent.”).

But Elonis does not

affect our constitutional rule that a “true threat” is one that
a reasonable recipient familiar with the context would interpret
as a serious expression of an intent to do harm.

See White, 670

F.3d at 508-10.
What that means, in this circuit after Elonis, is that
a conviction pursuant to § 875(c) now entails “what the [statute
requires]

(a

subjectively

intended

threat)

and

[also]

what

constitutional avoidance principles demand (an objectively real
threat).”
Cir.

2012)

See United States v. Jeffries, 692 F.3d 473, 485 (6th
(Sutton,

J.,

dubitante).

That

is:

(1)

that

the

defendant knowingly transmitted a communication in interstate or
foreign commerce; (2) that the defendant subjectively intended
the communication as a threat; and (3) that the content of the
communication contained a “true threat” to kidnap or injure.
prove

the

second

element,

the
14

Government,

consistent

To
with

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Elonis,

must

Filed: 01/07/2016

establish

communication

“for

the

that

Pg: 15 of 44

the

purpose

of

defendant

transmitted

issuing

threat,

a

or

the
with

knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat,”
or, perhaps, with reckless disregard for the likelihood that the
communication will be viewed as a threat.
Ct. at 2012-13.
with

our

See Elonis, 135 S.

And to establish the third element, in keeping

prior

cases,

the

prosecution

must

show

that

an

ordinary, reasonable recipient who is familiar with the context
in which the statement is made would interpret it as a serious
expression of an intent to do harm.

See White, 670 F.3d at 508-

10.
Here, by contrast, the district court (which did not
have the benefit of the Court’s decision in Elonis) instructed
the jury that it could convict Appellant pursuant to § 875(c) if
he transmitted a true threat in interstate commerce, without
regard

to

his

subjective

intent.

instruction was erroneous.

In

light

of

Elonis,

that

See United States v. Houston, 792

F.3d 663, 667 (6th Cir. 2015).
2.
The
harmless.

nevertheless

maintains

the

error

was

We agree.
The

analysis

Government

to

Supreme
cases

Court

involving

has

“often

improper

applied

harmless-error

instructions,”

Neder

v.

United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9, (1999), as have we, see United
15

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 16 of 44

States v. Brown, 202 F.3d 691, 699 (4th Cir. 2000).

“[O]ur task

is to determine whether the guilty verdict actually rendered
[at] trial was surely unattributable to the error.”
F.3d at 699 (internal quotation marks omitted).
ask

whether

it

is

“clear

beyond

a

reasonable

Brown, 202

To do so, we
doubt

that

a

rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the
error[.]”

Neder, 527 U.S. at 18.
Where, as here, the district court declines to give an

instruction “not required under precedent that the Supreme Court
later supersede[s],” United States v. Ramos-Cruz, 667 F.3d 487,
496 (4th Cir. 2012), we engage in two specific inquiries to test
the harmlessness of the omission.

Under the first, we will find

an erroneous instruction harmless if we “conclude[] beyond a
reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and
supported by overwhelming evidence.”

Neder, 527 U.S. at 17.

Under the second, in cases where the defendant has contested the
omitted element, we ask “whether the record contains evidence
that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to
that omitted element.

If not, then the error was harmless.

so, however, reversal is necessary.”

If

Ramos-Cruz, 667 F.3d at

496 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The omitted issue in this case is whether Appellant
sent the e-mail charged in Count II of the indictment for the
purpose

of

issuing

a

threat,
16

with

the

knowledge

that

the

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 17 of 44

communication would be viewed as a threat, or (perhaps) with
reckless

disregard

threatening. 3

that

the

e-mail

would

be

perceived

as

Appellant did not suggest that he sent any of the

e-mails in question as a joke, nor did he testify that he was
simply blowing off steam.

Instead, he contested the issue of

intent, at best and if at all, only implicitly -- by denying
that

he

sent

the

e-mails.

rejected that theory.

The

jury,

however,

resoundingly

Thus, the jury having concluded beyond a

reasonable doubt that Appellant sent the e-mails, we are left to
consider only whether the contents of the Count II e-mail, in
the absence of any alternative explanation from Appellant, would
permit a jury to rationally find that Appellant did not intend
the

message

threat.

as

a

threat

or

know

it

would

be

received

as

a

We think no rational jury could reach that conclusion.
We acknowledge that appellate courts are ill-equipped

to

“evaluate

states

of

mind

Houston, 792 F.3d at 669.

based

on

a

cold

record.”

See

And we appreciate that, in many

threat cases, the question of intent will be far from clear,
even where it is undisputed that the defendant transmitted the
communication

and

the

message

3

itself

contains

harsh

and

The Supreme Court in Elonis declined to decide whether
§ 875(c) requires a defendant to act with purpose, knowledge, or
recklessness.
We similarly need not reach the issue because,
for the reasons that follow, we believe no jury could reasonably
conclude that Appellant’s conduct was anything but purposeful.

17

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

inflammatory language.
posted

threatening

Pg: 18 of 44

In Elonis, for example, the defendant

language

on

his

own

Facebook

page

with

disclaimers that the posts were rap lyrics, suggesting that they
may have been created for personal, therapeutic, rather than
malevolent, reasons.
Sixth

Circuit

See 135 S. Ct. at 2004-05.

recently

declined

to

find

Similarly, the

harmless

error

in

a

§ 875(c) prosecution where a defendant threatened his lawyer in
a call to a relative, rather than to the lawyer himself, because
the

circumstances

defendant
confidante

was

another.”

of

simply

rather

the

call

“venting

than

made
his

issuing

a

it

plausible

frustration
public

to

death

that
a

the

trusted

threat

to

See Houston, 792 F.3d at 667-68.
But this case, and the message at issue, give rise to

no comparably reasonable competing inferences.

The jury found

that Appellant sent the e-mail constituting Count II directly to
MW, the intended recipient.

And the language used -- “you are

going to have the living shit beat out of you -- to start with”
-- was direct and declarative, not circumspect or hypothetical.
Appellant offered no other explanation for the message.

And in

his contemporaneous conversations with Gnos, he explained his
desire to scare MW into resuming the alimony payments.
“In

many

cases,

the

predicate

facts

conclusively

establish intent, so that no rational jury could find that the
defendant committed the relevant criminal act but did not intend
18

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

to cause injury.”
(internal

Pg: 19 of 44

Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 503 (1987)

quotation

marks

omitted).

That

holds

true

here.

Accordingly, because the record contains no evidence that could
rationally lead a jury to conclude that the sender of the Count
II

e-mail

intended

to

do

anything

other

than

threaten

the

recipient, and because the jury concluded beyond a reasonable
doubt that Appellant was indeed the sender, the district court’s
instructional error was harmless.
B.
Section 875(b)
We now turn to Appellant’s three § 875(b) convictions.
Like

§ 875(c),

that

statute

prohibits

the

transmission

in

interstate or foreign commerce of threats to kidnap or injure.
But,

as

noted,

§ 875(b)

also

requires

the

threatening

communication to be sent “with intent to extort from any person,
firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of
value[.]”

18 U.S.C. § 875(b).

Appellant maintains the district

court erred by failing to instruct the jury, consistent with
Elonis, that he intended the e-mails charged in Counts I, III,
and

IV

as

disregarded

extortionate
that

those

extortionate threats.

threats,
e-mails

or
would

knew
be

or

recklessly

perceived

as

He also claims the indictment should have

been dismissed because he could not have intended to “extort”
from MW alimony payments to which he was legally entitled.
19

The

Appeal: 14-4375

meaning

Doc: 66

of

Filed: 01/07/2016

“intent

to

Pg: 20 of 44

extort,”

however,

forecloses

both

arguments.
1.
Section 875 does not define “intent to extort” or even
the term “extortion.”

See United States v. Coss, 677 F.3d 278,

283-84 (6th Cir. 2012) (“The precise meaning of ‘extort’ . . .
in

the

context

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 875(d)

is

an

issue

of

first

impression in the Sixth Circuit.”); United States v. Jackson,
180 F.3d 55, 65 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that § 875(d) “does not
define the terms ‘extort’ or ‘intent to extort’”).

However, two

of our sister circuits have persuasively reasoned, and we agree,
that § 875 employs “the traditional concept of extortion, which
includes an element of wrongfulness.”

Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 70-

71 (2d Cir. 1999); Coss, 677 F.3d 278, 285 (6th Cir. 2012)
(importing into § 875 “the broader concept of extortion, which
carries

with

it

the

use

of

a

wrongful

threat

to

procure

something of value” (emphasis in original)).
Incorporating
intent

to

extort

for

this

understanding,

purposes

of

§ 875(b)

we

hold

that

is

the

intent

the
to

procure something of value through the use of a wrongful threat
to kidnap or injure the person of another.
wrongful when delivered intentionally.
at 2012-13.

Such a threat is

Cf. Elonis, 135 S. Ct.

But this helps Appellant not at all, because it

would be passing strange, indeed impossible, for a defendant to
20

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

intend

to

Filed: 01/07/2016

obtain

something

Pg: 21 of 44

by

communicating

such

a

threat

without also intending, understanding, or, possibly, recklessly
disregarding

that

the

communication

threatening, as Elonis requires.

would

be

perceived

as

The reason is straightforward:

Extortion only works if the recipient of the communication fears
that not paying will invite an unsavory result.

Thus, to intend

to extort one must necessarily intend to instill fear of harm
(for purposes of § 875(b), in the form of kidnapping or physical
injury).

Cf., e.g., United States v. Marsh, 26 F.3d 1496, 1500-

01 (9th Cir. 1994) (“For attempted extortion, . . . the victim’s
state of mind is not important.

What is important is that the

defendant attempted to instill fear in the victim.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Frazier, 560 F.2d
884, 887 (8th Cir. 1977) (“Proof of an attempt to arouse fear is
sufficient
Act.”).

proof

of

an

attempted

extortion

under

the

Hobbs

In other words, the intent to carry out an unlawful act

by use of a threat necessarily subsumes the intent to threaten.
The

Ninth

Circuit’s

decision

in

United

States

v.

Stewart, 420 F.3d 1007 (2005), illustrates well the principle we
have just articulated.
U.S.C.

§ 115(a)(1)(B)

There the court considered whether 18
--

which

makes

it

a

crime

to

threaten

certain federal officials with the intent to impede, intimidate,
interfere

with,

or

retaliate

against

the

official

in

the

performance of his or her duties -- requires proof that the
21

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 22 of 44

defendant subjectively intended his words to be threatening.

As

the court explained, “proof that the speaker intended the speech
to impede, intimidate, interfere with, or retaliate against the
protected official” necessarily includes the subjective intent
to threaten, because “one cannot have the intent” to impede,
intimidate, interfere, or retaliate through the use of a threat
“without also intending to make the threat.”
1019.

See id. at 1017,

Likewise, here, we conclude that one cannot have the

intent to scare someone into relinquishing property or something
of value by communicating a wrongful threat to kidnap or injure
without also intending the communication to be threatening.
The district court’s instruction sufficiently captured
this

concept.

As

the

court

explained,

to

convict

Appellant

pursuant to § 875(b), the jury was required to find that he
acted “with intent to . . . wrongfully induce someone to pay
money or something of value by threatening to injure that person
if such payment is not made.”

J.A. 1076.

Accordingly, because

the charge required the jury to find that Appellant intended to
threaten MW to induce her to pay the disputed alimony, we find
no error in the instruction.
2.
Appellant’s remaining argument -- that he could not
have intended to extort MW because he had a “claim of right” to
the alimony payments -- is similarly unavailing.
22

As we have now

Appeal: 14-4375

said,

Doc: 66

the

Filed: 01/07/2016

question

is

whether

Pg: 23 of 44

Appellant

intended

to

procure

something of value from MW through the use of a wrongful threat
to kidnap or injure.

The key word is “wrongful.”

Appellant’s argument is that it is not wrongful to
demand money one is rightfully owed.
that may well be true.
for

example,

courts

There are situations where

In extortion cases under the Hobbs Act,

have

held

“a

defendant

cannot

be

found

guilty of wrongfully obtaining property through the use of a
legitimate economic threat if he has a claim of right to the
property.”
(1st

See, e.g., United States v. Sturm, 870 F.2d 769, 773

Cir.

1989)

(emphasis

supplied).

Instead,

“the

use

of

legitimate economic threats to obtain property is wrongful only
if the defendant has no claim of right to that property.”

Id.

(footnote omitted).
But
“legitimate

this

economic

case

involves

threats.”

threats

And,

of

outside

violence,
the

context

not
of

labor relations, 4 the “claim of right” defense is inapplicable in

4

In United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 401-08 (1973),
the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not prohibit the
use of force (specifically, strike violence) to achieve
legitimate goals in labor negotiations.
But courts have
uniformly limited Enmons to the labor context.
See, e.g.,
Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1131 (9th Cir. 2014) (“As
to violent threats, we have declined to extend Enmons beyond the
context of a labor dispute[.]” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Rennell v. Rowe, 635 F.3d 1008, 1012 (7th Cir. 2011)
(“We have understood Enmons to be limited to the context of
organized labor.”); United States v. Markle, 628 F.3d 58, 62 (2d
(Continued)
23

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 24 of 44

Hobbs Act cases involving the use or threatened use of violence.
See, e.g., United States v. Villalobos, 748 F.3d 953, 956 (9th
Cir. 2014) (“[T]he claim of right defense . . . is unavailable
in cases involving physical violence . . . because such violence
is inherently wrongful.”).

This is so, courts have explained,

because “Congress meant to punish as extortion” under the Hobbs
Act “any effort to obtain property by inherently wrongful means,
such as force or threats of force . . ., regardless of the
defendant’s claim of right to the property.”

United States v.

Zappola,

1982)

677

F.2d

264,

268-69

(2d

Cir.

(emphasis

supplied).
It makes some sense, then, that the small number of
courts to incorporate the “claim of right” defense into their
understanding of § 875 have done so in the context of § 875(d),
which prohibits the transmission of extortionate threats to the
property or reputation of the recipient, rather than threats to
kidnap or injure.

See 18 U.S.C. § 875(d).

As with the Hobbs

Act cases, the defense has been limited in the § 875(d) context
to

a

narrow

“inherently

category
wrongful.”

of

threats
In

United

to

reputation

States

v.

deemed

not

Jackson,

for

example, the Second Circuit opined that it would not be wrongful

Cir. 2010) (“In this Circuit, we have declined to extend the
Enmons defense to non-labor cases.”).

24

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 25 of 44

for a club to threaten to publish the names of members with
delinquent accounts if the dues were indeed owing, or for a
consumer to register a public complaint about the quality of a
seller’s product if the product was actually defective.

See 180

F.3d at 70-71 (“[I]f the club posts a list of members with
unpaid dues and its list is accurate, the dues generally will be
paid; if the consumer lodges her complaint and is right, she is
likely

to

receive

concluded.”).

her

refund;

and

both

matters

are

thereby

On the other hand, the Jackson court expressly

distinguished “extortionate threats to kidnap or to injure a
person,”

explaining

that

inherently wrongful.”

such

“conduct

.

.

.

plainly

is

Id. at 67; see also Coss, 677 F.3d at 284

(quoting Jackson, 180 F.3d at 67).

And no court has suggested,

as Appellant does, that such threats of physical violence would
cease to be wrongful simply because a legitimate debt is at
issue.
In sum, just as “you cannot beat someone up to collect
a debt, even if you believe he owes it to you,” United States v.
Castor, 937 F.2d 293, 299 (7th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation
marks omitted), it follows that a defendant may not threaten to
injure

or

kidnap

a

person

legitimately due and owing.

to

collect

a

debt,

even

one

The indictment in this case alleged

that Appellant threatened to have MW beaten, hospitalized, or
subjected to some less specific violence.
25

Accordingly, even

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

assuming

MW

Filed: 01/07/2016

owed

Appellant

the

Pg: 26 of 44

alimony

payments

he

sought,

Appellant was not entitled to have the indictment against him
dismissed on the basis of his “claim of right” theory.
III.
Having resolved the legal framework, we now consider,
and reject, Appellant’s remaining objections to the proceedings
below.
A.
The Anonymous Jury
Appellant

claims

the

district

court

erred

by

empaneling an anonymous jury, a decision which we review for
abuse of discretion.

See United States v. Hager, 721 F.3d 167,

186 (4th Cir. 2013).
A district court should rarely empanel an anonymous
jury, but may do so if “(1) there is strong reason to conclude
that the jury needs protection from interference or harm, or
that the integrity of the jury’s function will be compromised
absent

anonymity;

and

(2)

reasonable

safeguards

have

been

adopted to minimize the risk that the rights of the accused will
be infringed.”

Hager, 721 F.3d at 186 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting

United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 372 (4th Cir. 2012)).
In
functions,

a

assessing
district

the

need

court

to

should

protect
consider

the

jury

several

and

its

factors,

including: whether the defendant is involved in organized crime
26

Appeal: 14-4375

or

a

Doc: 66

member

Filed: 01/07/2016

of

some

other

Pg: 27 of 44

group

with

the

capacity

to

harm

jurors; whether he has previously attempted to interfere with
the judicial process; whether he is facing a lengthy sentence or
substantial fine; and whether extensive publicity makes it more
likely

that

the

harassment.

jury

will

be

subjected

to

See Hager, 721 F.3d at 187.

intimidation

or

As is often true of

multi-factor tests, however, the list is not exhaustive and the
presence or absence of any of those is not dispositive.
Here,

Appellant’s

criminal

history weighed heavily in favor of jury anonymity.

As the

district

the

court

convictions

district

carefully

each

“reflect

court

found

See id.

explained,
his

Appellant’s

willingness

to

use

previous
threats

or

personal information to intimidate persons involved in judicial
proceedings.”

J.A. 145.

For example, his 2010 conviction in

the Western District of Virginia involved threats intended to
influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of tenants involved
in

an

ongoing

housing

discrimination

complaint.

See

United

States v. White, 670 F.3d 498, 501, 503-04 (4th Cir. 2012).
And, as the district court further observed, Appellant
had also previously been convicted in the Northern District of
Illinois

“of

soliciting

offense”

against

a

juror

the
“in

commission

of

a

violation

of

18

violent

federal

U.S.C.

§ 373.”

J.A. 146 (citing United States v. White, 698 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir.
2012)).

In that case, Appellant authored an Internet post in
27

Appeal: 14-4375

which

Doc: 66

he

Filed: 01/07/2016

disclosed

personal

Pg: 28 of 44

information

about

a

juror

who,

according to Appellant, “played a key role in convicting Matt
Hale,” a white supremacist.

See United States v. White, 698

F.3d 1005, 1009-10 (7th Cir. 2012).
picture

of

numbers.

the

juror

See id.

elsewhere

on

and

the

The posting included a

juror’s

address

and

telephone

As the district court explained, Appellant

the

same

website

expressed

his

view

that

“[e]veryone associated with the Matt Hale trial has deserved
assassination for a long time[.]”

J.A. 146 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted).
We

agree

with

the

district

court

that

Appellant’s

prior history of interfering with witnesses and a juror, and in
particular

his

use

of

the

Internet

to

publicize

a

juror’s

personal information, strongly favored the use of an anonymous
jury.

Appellant

complains

that

the

district

court

erred

by

affording “dispositive weight” to this factor, but the district
court

did

history.

not

rest

its

decision

solely

on

Appellant’s

prior

As the district judge explained, he also found that

the possibility of a lengthy sentence under § 875(b) and the
considerable
additional
jury.

press

support

attention
for

the

to

Appellant’s

decision

to

trial

empanel

an

provided
anonymous

We perceive no abuse of discretion in that decision.

Indeed, the Seventh Circuit upheld the use of an anonymous jury
in a case against Appellant based on the mere allegation that he
28

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 29 of 44

had posted the personal information of a juror on the Internet
and the existence of “some publicity” around the trial.

See

United States v. White, 698 F.3d 1005, 1017 (7th Cir. 2012)
(emphasizing

that

Appellant

was

on

trial

for

posting

“the

personal contact information [] of a juror”).
The district court also satisfied its obligation to
adopt reasonable safeguards to protect Appellant’s right to a
fair trial.
jurors

they

Most significantly, the district court told the
were

being

empaneled

anonymously

to

prevent

the

press from communicating with them during trial:
We’re
not
using
this
process
to
be
disrespectful to any of you.
Instead, we
want
to
ensure
that
you
will
remain
anonymous so that you will not be contacted
by anyone in the media, and to ensure that
no outside information is communicated to
any juror throughout the jury selection
process and the trial. This is so that each
side can have a fair and impartial trial.
The fact that we are identifying you by
number should have no impact at all on the
presumption of innocence that the defendant
is entitled to, or any impact in any other
way as you consider and decide the case if
you were selected to serve on the jury.
J.A.

155.

We

have

previously

endorsed

precisely

safeguard, and we find it appropriate here as well.

such

a

See Hager,

721 F.3d at 188-89 (observing that a very similar explanation to
the jury was a sufficient “neutral non-prejudicial reason for
empaneling an anonymous jury”); see also United States v. White,

29

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 30 of 44

698 F.3d 1005, 1017 (7th Cir. 2012) (noting that any harm from
empaneling an anonymous jury would be rendered harmless where
the jury was told the measure was adopted “to ensure a fair and
impartial trial” and the court “did not mention security as a
reason”).

Accordingly, the district court’s use of an anonymous

jury was not error.
B.
The Gnos Notes
Appellant also argues it was reversible error to admit
Gnos’s handwritten notes into evidence.

We review evidentiary

rulings

affording

for

an

abuse

of

discretion,

deference to the district court.

substantial

See United States v. Medford,

661 F.3d 746, 751 (4th Cir. 2011).
The

relevant

portions

of

the

notes,

which

were

admitted during Gnos’s direct examination by the prosecution,
read as follows:
OK- if Phone Call dont [sic] work – we will
have to have someone fuck her up!
***
find someone to talk to wife on [sic] go and
collect money –
J.A. 727-28.
of-court

The Government concedes the notes are prior out-

statements,

but

argues

they

were

admissible

under

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1)’s exception for present-senseimpressions.

Appellant aptly points out that the Government
30

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 31 of 44

failed to offer that rationale for the notes’ admissibility at
trial.
the

But we need not resolve the issue because, even assuming

notes

are

inadmissible

hearsay,

we

agree

with

the

Government’s alternative contention that any error in admitting
them was ultimately harmless.
“A nonconstitutional error ceases to be harmless if it
had

a

substantial

and

injurious

determining the jury’s verdict.”
F.3d

267,

omitted).

276

(4th

“We

inconsequential

do

or

influence

in

United States v. Briley, 770

Cir.

2014)

not

reverse

technicalities.

effect

(internal

quotation

evidentiary

Rather,

reversal

marks

rulings
is

for

reserved

for more serious errors that affect substantial rights or that
directly affect the outcome of a case.”

Id. (internal quotation

marks omitted).
In

this

case,

the

notes,

if

believed

by

the

jury,

could have informed the jury’s consideration of two important
issues:

whether

Appellant

authored

the

e-mails

Appellant intended to extort money from MW.

and

whether

But the Government

properly introduced several audio recordings of Appellant making
nearly identical comments to Gnos on several occasions.

And

those recordings demonstrated, in far more vibrant detail than
Gnos’s

notes,

that

Appellant

was

preoccupied

someone in Virginia willing to intimidate MW.

31

with

finding

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Appellant
Government’s
enough.

Pg: 32 of 44

maintains

additional

that

evidence

the

is

not

strength

of

the

dispositive.

Fair

But the closeness of the case, which will frequently

turn on the weight of the evidence, is clearly relevant to the
harmless error analysis.

See Kotteakos v. United States, 328

U.S. 750, 763 (1946) (“Errors of this sort in criminal causes
conceivably
clear

may

be

evidence,

altogether

although

harmless

the

same

in

the

error

face

might

of

turn

other
scales

otherwise level, as constantly appears in the application of the
policy

.

.

.

evidence.”).

to

questions

of

the

admission

of

cumulative

And we have in the past held evidentiary errors

harmless where the Government’s case is strongly corroborated by
other

admissible

(observing

that

evidence.
a

See

“plethora

of

Briley,

770

testimony

F.3d

at

277-78

established”

the

elements of the charged offense and concluding the admission of
improper character evidence was harmless).
Ultimately, the question is whether we can say “with
fair

assurance,

stripping

the

after

pondering

erroneous

action

all

that

from

the

happened
whole,

without

that

the

[jurors’] judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.”
Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 765.

In this case, because the substance

of Gnos’s notes was repeatedly corroborated by Appellant’s own
later-recorded

statements,

we

are

confident

any

error

admitting the notes did not affect the outcome of the case.
32

in
See

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 33 of 44

United States v. Mazza, 792 F.2d 1210, 1216-22 (1st Cir. 1986)
(Breyer, J.) (holding hearsay admission harmless where recorded
conversations largely corroborated out-of-court statements).
C.
The Sufficiency of the Evidence
We next turn to Appellant’s claim that he was entitled
to a judgment of acquittal, a question which we review de novo.
See United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 525 (4th Cir. 2014).
The question is whether, “viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could
have

found

reasonable
(1979).

the

essential

doubt.”

Jackson

elements
v.

of

the

Virginia,

443

crime

beyond

U.S.

307,

a
319

Under that standard, we think a rational trier of fact

could easily have found that Appellant sent MW true threats of
bodily harm through foreign commerce with the intent to extort.
The district court therefore properly denied the motion.
1.
Respecting the “true threat” requirement, the question
-- which remains unchanged following Elonis -- is whether “a
reasonable recipient familiar with the context” would consider
the communicated statement “a serious expression of an intent to
do harm.”

United States v. White, 670 F.3d 498, 509 (4th Cir.

2012) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

33

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 34 of 44

In the case at hand, we have an estranged wife on the
outs with her fugitive husband with whom she was engaged in a
dispute over money.

The e-mails comprising Counts I, III, and

IV explained (either explicitly or implicitly) that the sender
had

been

in

recipient,

contact

and

with

advised

a

the

loan

shark

recipient

who

lived

near

be

ready

to

to

the

remit

payment or risk, respectively, having someone “beat [her] ass,”
“probably

be[ing]

hospitalized,”

or

having

“something

potentially happen[] to [her] around [her] baby.”

violent

J.A. 717-25.

As for the e-mail constituting Count II, it similarly warned the
recipient
[her]--

that

to

she

start

would

with,”

“have
and

the

that

living

the

shit

sender

beat

had

“a

out

of

lot

of

friends who think nothing of taking out on [her] the things” she
allegedly did to the sender.

J.A. 721.

By any measure, a

reasonable person would have interpreted those messages as a
serious expression of an intent to do harm.

See White, 670 F.3d

at 513 (holding that a caller’s message that recipient would be
“hunted down and shot” was a true threat).
2.
Whether Appellant sent the e-mails and whether they
traveled in foreign commerce are overlapping questions.

There

is no dispute Appellant was in Mexico and MW in Virginia when
the e-mails were sent; if he sent them, the foreign commerce
element is clearly satisfied.

And the jury heard more than
34

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

enough

Filed: 01/07/2016

evidence

to

find,

Pg: 35 of 44

beyond

a

reasonable

doubt,

that

Appellant was indeed the author of each charged e-mail.

To

begin with, the e-mails originated from an e-mail address long
associated

with

Appellant.

They

were

also

sent

from

an

IP

address that had been masked through the use of an anonymizer,
technology which Appellant bragged to Gnos and on Facebook about
using.

Moreover, the e-mails were sent around the same time

that someone using the same IP address was updating Appellant’s
Facebook page.

Appellant flatly denied sending the e-mails,

but, given the evidence just discussed, a rational trier of fact
would have been justified in discounting his testimony.

See

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc) (We “remain cognizant . . . that the [j]ury, not the
reviewing
resolves

court,
any

weighs

conflicts

the
in

credibility

the

evidence

of

the

evidence

presented.”

and

(internal

quotation marks omitted)).
3.
Finally, to demonstrate that Appellant sent each email with the intent to extort, the Government was obliged to
show Appellant intended to induce MW to pay him by wrongfully
threatening her with bodily injury if she did not.

The jury

heard Appellant repeatedly emphasize to Gnos the importance of
finding

someone

to

lean

on

MW.

And

each

of

the

e-mails

comprising Counts I, III, and IV specifically demands money from
35

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 36 of 44

the recipient, and threatens violence if the money is not paid.
A rational jury could easily have found that the sender of those
messages intended to express exactly what those words mean -the quintessential extortionate demand: “pay up, or else.”
Appellant

also

intimidate

MW

contemporaneously
into

paying

the

evident intent to extort her.
did

not

err

acquittal.

in

denying

discussed

alimony

only

his

That

plans

to

crystalized

his

Accordingly, the district court

Appellant’s

motion

for

judgment

of

5

5

Whether the district court erred in denying the motion for
judgment of acquittal as to Count II is almost nearly moot
inasmuch as the jury implicitly acquitted Appellant of violating
§ 875(b) on that count, finding him guilty only of violating
§ 875(c).
And, even assuming the jury reached the correct
verdict on Count II, Appellant was not entitled to a judgment of
acquittal on the lesser-included offense because, as discussed
above, a rational trier of fact could have found each of the
elements of a § 875(c) offense, as it existed prior to Elonis,
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Wood,
207 F.3d 1222, 1229 (10th Cir. 2000) (“When ruling on a motion
for judgment of acquittal, a district court should consider not
only whether the evidence would be sufficient to sustain a
conviction of the offense charged, but also whether it would be
sufficient to sustain a conviction on a lesser included
offense.”); see also United States v. Ellyson, 326 F.3d 522,
532-33 (4th Cir. 2003) (declining to issue judgment of acquittal
in case involving erroneous jury instructions because, “[u]nder
circuit law at the time of trial, the Government presented more
than sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict”); United
States v. Houston, 792 F.3d 663, 670-71 (6th Cir. 2015) (“Do we
measure the sufficiency of the evidence to convict . . . under
the wrong instruction (what was given) or the right one (what
would otherwise be given on remand)?
Oddly enough, it is the
wrong instruction, at least when the instructions omit or
inaccurately describe an element of the offense.”).

36

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 37 of 44

D.
The Reasonableness of the Sentence
Finally, we consider Appellant’s three challenges to
his sentence.

“We review the reasonableness of a sentencing

decision under an abuse of discretion standard.”

United States

v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014).
1.
Appellant first asserts the district court erred in
applying the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice,
rendering his sentence procedurally unreasonable.

“There are

three elements necessary to impose a two-level enhancement for
obstruction

of

justice

based

on

the

defendant’s

perjurious

testimony: the sentencing court must find that the defendant (1)
gave false testimony; (2) concerning a material matter; (3) with
willful intent to deceive.”

United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d

189, 192 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“[I]t is preferable for a district court to address each element
of the alleged perjury in a separate and clear finding.

It is

enough, however, if the court makes a finding of an obstruction
of,

or

impediment

to,

justice

factual

predicates

for

a

that

finding

of

encompasses

all

of

the

perjury.”

Id.

at

193

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Appellant testified at trial that he did not send the
threatening e-mails to MW and suggested instead that Gnos was
37

Appeal: 14-4375

the

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

responsible

party.

The

Pg: 38 of 44

jury,

inasmuch

as

it

found

him

guilty, clearly rejected Appellant’s alternative theory of the
crime.

At

sentencing

the

district

court

objection to the two-level enhancement.

denied

Appellant’s

The court explained:

Well, I have heard the evidence before a
jury.
I think there was ample evidence for
the jury to have found like it did. I think
when you took the stand and testified, I
can’t imagine you not knowing what you had
done. I think that was to obstruct justice;
maybe get the jury to think that someone
else other than you did it.
J.A. 1139.

Although not as explicit as ideal, the district

court provided a sufficient basis for imposing the two-level
enhancement.

The observation that the jury rejected Appellant’s

testimony, and the court’s comment that it could “not imagine”
Appellant was unaware of sending the e-mails when he testified,
established falsity and willfulness.

See J.A. 1139.

And the

issue of who authored the e-mails, which Appellant attempted to
muddy

by

falsely

implicating

Gnos,

was

plainly

material.

Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying the twolevel enhancement.
2.
Next, Appellant claims his sentence is substantively
unreasonable

because

his political views.
properly

calculated

the

district

court

improperly

considered

“Any sentence that is within or below a
Guidelines

38

range

is

presumptively

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 39 of 44

reasonable.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

Cir. 2014).

Appellant bears the burden of convincing us that

his sentence was instead greater than necessary to provide just
punishment, promote respect for the law, reflect the seriousness
of

the

offense,

adequately

deter

similar

criminal

conduct,

protect the public, and provide necessary rehabilitation.

See

18

306

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a);
that

(observing

see

presumption

the

also

Louthian,
that

756

a

F.3d

at

within-Guidelines

sentence is reasonable “can be rebutted only by showing that the
sentence

is

unreasonable

when

measured

against

the

.

.

.

§ 3553(a) factors.”).
Here, the district court imposed a 92-month sentence
at the bottom of the Guidelines range.

Appellant argues the

sentence was nevertheless “greater than necessary” because it
was

improperly

based

on

his

unpopular

political

views.

He

relies on two statements from the bench during the sentencing
hearing.

In the first, the district court noted its concern

that

Government

“the

[wa]s

trying

to

punish

[Appellant]

[his] beliefs,” or “largely because of [his] beliefs.”
1140-41.

for
J.A.

In the second, the district court observed that it was

“bothered . . . a little bit” that the Guidelines range was “a
little high because of [Appellant’s] beliefs,” but ultimately
denied Appellant’s request for a downward departure because his
offense

was

“serious,”

and

because
39

MW

“would

have

been

very

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

apprehensive

Filed: 01/07/2016

about”

receiving

convicted of sending.
Appellant
district
prosecutor

court

Pg: 40 of 44

threats

Appellant

was

remarks.

The

See id. at 1145.

reads

too

immediately

attempted

the

to

much

into

rebuked
argue

these

the

that

Government
some

of

when

the

Appellant’s

politically controversial writings showed a lack of respect for
the

law.

The

court

explained

that

Appellant

“has

a

constitutional right to believe what he believes,” and reminded
the Government that it “[c]an’t punish him for that.”

J.A.

1136-37.
In sum, we think the most that can be inferred from
the

sentencing

transcript

is

that

the

district

court

was

concerned by the potential that Appellant had been singled out
for prosecution and so selected a sentence at the bottom of the
Guidelines range.

But the district court also acknowledged that

Appellant’s words nevertheless constituted serious threats that
negatively impacted MW, making departure below the Guidelines
range inappropriate.

We find no error in this approach.
3.

Finally,

Appellant

contends

that

the

district

court

erred by failing to group his counts of conviction under § 3D1.2
of the Guidelines.

Because he did not raise the grouping issue

until his reply brief in this court, he acknowledges that plain
error review is appropriate.

“To satisfy plain error review,
40

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 41 of 44

the defendant must establish that: (1) there is a sentencing
error; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects his
substantial rights.”

United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d

416, 422 (4th Cir. 2015).

“If the three-part plain error test

is satisfied, we must decide whether to cure the error, and
should

not

fairness,

do

so

unless

integrity

proceedings.”

Id.

or

the

error

public

(internal

seriously

reputation

quotation

affects

the

of

marks

judicial

and

citation

omitted).
Appellant’s PSR stated that his convictions were not
subject to grouping pursuant to § 3D1.2(d) of the Guidelines.
That

is

maintains

a

correct
it

was

statement

of

nevertheless

§ 3D1.2(d).

plain

error

But

not

to

Appellant
group

his

offenses under § 3D1.2(a) or (b) and that the probation officer
and district court (along with the parties’ counsel) plainly
misinterpreted Subsection (d) as a blanket or overriding bar
against grouping under Subsection (a) or (b).
Several courts have made clear that offenses excluded
from grouping under Subsection (d) may nevertheless be grouped
pursuant to Subsection (a) or (b).

See, e.g., United States v.

Lopez-Urbina, 434 F.3d 750, 764 (5th Cir. 2005); United States
v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 632 (9th Cir. 2000).
evidence

in

the

sentencing

transcript

But there is no

suggesting

the

court

interpreted Subsection (d) to absolutely bar grouping under any
41

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

circumstances.
court

to

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 42 of 44

Nor was it plainly erroneous for the district

decline

to

Subsection (a) or (b).

group

Appellant’s

offenses

pursuant

In fact, though we need not definitively

resolve the question, the Application Notes to those Subsections
could be plausibly read to suggest Appellant’s offenses were not
subject to grouping.

For example, respecting Subsection (a),

Comment 3 states:
(5) The defendant is convicted of three
counts of unlawfully bringing aliens into
the United States, all counts arising out of
a single incident. The three counts are to
be grouped together. But: (6) The defendant
is convicted of two counts of assault on a
federal officer for shooting at the officer
on two separate days. The counts are not to
be grouped together.
See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2 cmt. 3.

The commentary and explanations

explicating Subsection (b) contain a similar distinction:
(2) The defendant is convicted of two counts
of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud,
each in furtherance of a single fraudulent
scheme.
The
counts
are
to
be
grouped
together, even if the mailings and telephone
call occurred on different days. . . . .
But: (5) The defendant is convicted of two
counts of rape for raping the same person on
different days. The counts are not to be
grouped together.
See id. § 3D1.2 cmt. 4.

And the Application Notes further

provide that Subsection (b) “does not authorize the grouping of
offenses that cannot be considered to represent essentially one
composite harm (e.g., robbery of the same victim on different

42

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 43 of 44

occasions involves multiple, separate instances of fear and risk
of harm, not one composite harm).”

Id.

Given that each of

Appellant’s threats against MW involved “separate instances of
fear and risk of harm,” the district court did not plainly err
by categorizing “[e]ach message []as a separate offense,” J.A.
1132, and declining to group them.
In support of his argument, Appellant points to United
States v. Thomas, 155 F.3d 833, 840 (7th Cir. 1998), in which
the court remanded for consideration of the grouping question
with respect to multiple § 876 convictions.

But in doing so the

Thomas court relied on Application Note 3 of § 2A6.1 of the
Guidelines,

which

specifically

provides

that

“multiple

counts

involving making a threatening or harassing communication to the
same

victim

U.S.S.G.

§

are
2A6.1

grouped
cmt.

3

together
(emphasis

under

[sect]

supplied).

By

3D1.2[.]”
contrast,

Appellant’s § 875(b) offenses fall under Guideline § 2B3.2 which
says nothing about grouping; only his lone § 875(c) conviction
is covered by § 2A6.1.

Accordingly, given that the Application

Notes

not

to

§ 875(b)

§

3D1.2

offenses

do

pursuant

unambiguously
to

Subsection

direct
(a)

grouping
or

(b),

of
the

district court did not plainly err by failing to do so.
IV.
A defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect
one.

See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 (1986).
43

Appeal: 14-4375

Doc: 66

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 44 of 44

Here, Appellant received a fair trial, and we find no reason to
disturb the jury’s verdict or the district court’s sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

44