Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. William White, 4th Cir. (2016)
United States v. William White, 4th Cir. (2016)
No. 14-4375
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:
Decided:
January 7, 2016
White
(Appellant)
believed
his
ex-wife
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
875(b)
counts,
and
one
count
of
the
lesser-
He maintains
and
the
sufficiency
disputes
both
of
the
the
evidence
procedural
presented
and
against
substantive
in
and
sending
Roanoke
who
intimidating
had
filed
letters
fair
to
housing
several
complaint
his
he
was
now-ex-wife,
incarcerated,
MW,
Appellants
deteriorated.
relationship
They
eventually
She made
Around the
but
remanded
the
case
for
resentencing.
See
United
States v. White, 670 F.3d 498, 502-03, 515-16 (4th Cir. 2012).
Instead, he fled,
Appellants subsequent
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 thats probably best,
um, I mean, thats easiest.
You said you
didnt know anybody that would actually go
there and just tell her to give them the
fucking money.
J.A. 730.
I assume youre
the deal with my
still, ah,
ex-wife up
GNOS:
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 youre
gonna pay the fucking money or Im gonna
fuck you up.
Id. at 733.
APPELLANT:
So, anyways, but, yeah, ah,
well, I just thought Id, ah, check in with
you.
Have you got any solution for getting
some money out of my ex-wife?
GNOS:
No Ive been sick.
I havent been
talking to anybody on the phone.
APPELLANT:
All right, well, its kind of
important. . . . Im 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
cant 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
final
J.A. 18.
The
following
day,
June
8,
2012,
Appellant
was
on
the
basis
of
the
e-mails
set
forth
above.
As
commerce
any
communication
containing
any
threat
to
18 U.S.C. 875(b).
B.
Before
trial,
Appellant
moved
to
dismiss
the
over
Appellants
objection,
The
case
proceeded
to
trial
during
his
escape
to
Mexico.
She
noted
that
Internet
Protocol
(IP)
address.
Gnos
also
communicate with Appellant, check his mail, and wire him money.
At her fathers 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
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.
that
the
e-mails
to
MW
originated
from
an
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
Probation
Department
thereafter
prepared
the
United
States
Sentencing
9
Guidelines
(Guidelines).
Appellant
downward
objected
to
departure
the
from
enhancement
the
and
recommended
also
requested
Guidelines
sentence.
stage
of
his
prosecution.
The
heart
of
his
appeal,
was
legally
dismissed)
deficient
because
he
(and
could
therefore
not
have
should
intended
have
to
extort
the
jury
was
improperly
instructed
on
been
He also
the
intent
See United States v. Said, 798 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2015)
(We review de novo a district courts denial of a motion to
dismiss
an
indictment
where
the
denial
depends
solely
on
person
of
another.
18
U.S.C.
875(b)
and
(c).
The
of
depends
his
on
875(c)
the
conviction,
application
of
which
the
His
we
consider
first,
Supreme
Courts
recent
508-10
(4th
Cir.
(discussing
true
threat
reasonable
in
recipient
the
who
prior
cases
and
constitutional
is
our
familiar
sense
with
is
the
one
that
circumstances
See, e.g.,
Court
requires
began
that
by
explaining
communication
be
the
text
transmitted
of
and
875(c)
that
the
observed,
that
no
mental
state
with
respect
Id. at 2008.
to
The
read
Morissette
as
v.
dispensing
United
with
it.
States,
342
Id.
U.S.
at
2009
(quoting
246,
250
(1952)).
otherwise
innocent
conduct,
id.
at
2010
(internal
As a result,
the
convicted
Court
concluded,
defendant
may
not
be
of
by
reasonable
person,
because
doing
so
would
disregard
for
the
likelihood
holding
in
Elonis
was
Id.
purely
that
the
communication
and,
having
13
Amendment.
Elonis
under
interpret
abrogates
875(c)
a
can
our
turn
statement,
solely
without
prior
holding
on
how
regard
to
that
recipient
whether
the
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
2012)
J.,
dubitante).
That
is:
(1)
that
the
the
second
element,
the
14
Government,
consistent
To
with
Elonis,
must
establish
communication
for
the
that
the
purpose
of
defendant
transmitted
issuing
threat,
or
the
with
our
prior
cases,
the
prosecution
must
show
that
an
10.
Here, by contrast, the district court (which did not
have the benefit of the Courts 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.
In
light
of
Elonis,
that
nevertheless
maintains
the
error
was
We agree.
The
analysis
Government
to
Supreme
cases
Court
involving
has
often
improper
applied
harmless-error
instructions,
Neder
v.
[O]ur task
whether
it
is
clear
beyond
reasonable
Brown, 202
To do so, we
doubt
that
rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the
error[.]
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
of
issuing
threat,
16
with
the
knowledge
that
the
disregard
threatening. 3
that
the
would
be
perceived
as
he
sent
the
e-mails.
The
jury,
however,
resoundingly
message
threat.
as
threat
or
know
it
would
be
received
as
to
evaluate
states
of
mind
based
on
cold
record.
See
and
the
message
itself
contains
harsh
and
17
inflammatory language.
posted
threatening
language
on
his
own
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
recently
declined
to
find
Similarly, the
harmless
error
in
circumstances
defendant
confidante
was
another.
of
simply
rather
the
call
venting
than
made
his
issuing
it
plausible
frustration
public
to
death
that
a
the
trusted
threat
to
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
many
cases,
the
predicate
facts
conclusively
to cause injury.
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
That
holds
true
here.
intended
to
do
anything
other
than
threaten
the
875(c),
that
statute
prohibits
the
transmission
in
as
noted,
875(b)
also
requires
the
threatening
18 U.S.C. 875(b).
IV
as
disregarded
extortionate
that
those
extortionate threats.
threats,
e-mails
or
would
knew
be
or
recklessly
perceived
as
The
meaning
of
intent
to
extort,
however,
forecloses
both
arguments.
1.
Section 875 does not define intent to extort or even
the term extortion.
the
context
of
18
U.S.C.
875(d)
is
an
issue
of
first
However, two
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
wrongful
threat
to
procure
to
extort
for
this
understanding,
purposes
of
875(b)
we
hold
that
is
the
intent
the
to
Such a threat is
intend
to
obtain
something
by
communicating
such
threat
that
the
communication
would
be
perceived
as
Thus, to intend
proof
of
an
attempted
extortion
under
the
Hobbs
Ninth
Circuits
decision
in
United
States
v.
115(a)(1)(B)
which
makes
it
crime
to
threaten
with,
or
retaliate
against
the
official
in
the
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.
concept.
As
the
court
explained,
to
convict
Appellant
J.A. 1076.
Accordingly, because
As we have now
said,
the
question
is
whether
Appellant
intended
to
procure
example,
courts
have
held
defendant
cannot
be
found
Cir.
1989)
(emphasis
supplied).
Instead,
the
use
of
Id.
(footnote omitted).
But
legitimate
this
economic
case
involves
threats.
threats
And,
of
outside
violence,
the
context
not
of
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.
Act cases, the defense has been limited in the 875(d) context
to
narrow
inherently
category
wrongful.
of
threats
In
United
to
reputation
States
v.
deemed
not
Jackson,
for
24
See 180
to
receive
concluded.).
her
refund;
and
both
matters
are
thereby
explaining
that
inherently wrongful.
such
conduct
plainly
is
or
kidnap
person
to
collect
debt,
even
one
Accordingly, even
assuming
MW
owed
Appellant
the
alimony
payments
he
sought,
claims
the
district
court
erred
by
anonymity;
and
(2)
reasonable
safeguards
have
been
adopted to minimize the risk that the rights of the accused will
be infringed.
United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 372 (4th Cir. 2012)).
In
functions,
assessing
district
the
need
court
to
should
protect
consider
the
jury
several
and
its
factors,
or
member
of
some
other
group
with
the
capacity
to
harm
that
the
harassment.
jury
will
be
subjected
to
intimidation
or
As is often true of
Appellants
criminal
As the
district
the
court
convictions
district
carefully
each
reflect
court
found
See id.
explained,
his
Appellants
willingness
to
use
previous
threats
or
J.A. 145.
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
juror
the
in
commission
of
violation
of
18
violent
federal
U.S.C.
373.
J.A. 146 (citing United States v. White, 698 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir.
2012)).
which
he
disclosed
personal
information
about
juror
who,
of
numbers.
the
juror
See id.
elsewhere
on
and
the
jurors
address
and
telephone
the
same
website
expressed
his
view
that
agree
with
the
district
court
that
Appellants
his
use
of
the
Internet
to
publicize
jurors
Appellant
complains
that
the
district
court
erred
by
did
history.
not
rest
its
decision
solely
on
Appellants
prior
press
support
attention
for
the
to
Appellants
decision
to
trial
empanel
an
provided
anonymous
See
United States v. White, 698 F.3d 1005, 1017 (7th Cir. 2012)
(emphasizing
that
Appellant
was
on
trial
for
posting
the
they
being
empaneled
anonymously
to
prevent
the
155.
We
have
previously
endorsed
precisely
such
See Hager,
29
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).
We review evidentiary
rulings
affording
for
an
abuse
of
discretion,
substantial
relevant
portions
of
the
notes,
which
were
statements,
but
argues
they
were
admissible
under
notes
are
inadmissible
hearsay,
we
agree
with
the
substantial
and
injurious
267,
omitted).
276
(4th
We
inconsequential
do
or
influence
in
Cir.
2014)
not
reverse
technicalities.
effect
(internal
quotation
evidentiary
Rather,
reversal
marks
rulings
is
for
reserved
marks omitted).
In
this
case,
the
notes,
if
believed
by
the
jury,
whether
Appellant
authored
the
e-mails
and
whether
And
notes,
that
Appellant
was
preoccupied
31
with
finding
Appellant
Governments
enough.
maintains
additional
that
evidence
the
is
not
strength
of
the
dispositive.
Fair
may
be
evidence,
altogether
although
harmless
the
same
in
the
error
face
might
of
turn
other
scales
evidence.).
to
questions
of
the
admission
of
cumulative
admissible
(observing
that
evidence.
a
See
plethora
of
Briley,
770
testimony
F.3d
at
277-78
established
the
assurance,
stripping
the
after
pondering
erroneous
action
all
that
from
the
happened
whole,
without
that
the
statements,
we
are
confident
any
error
admitting the notes did not affect the outcome of the case.
32
in
See
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 Appellants 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
33
been
in
recipient,
contact
and
with
advised
the
loan
shark
recipient
who
lived
near
be
ready
to
to
the
remit
be[ing]
hospitalized,
or
having
something
violent
J.A. 717-25.
that
to
she
start
would
with,
have
and
the
that
living
the
shit
sender
beat
had
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
There
enough
evidence
to
find,
beyond
reasonable
doubt,
that
To
with
Appellant.
They
were
also
sent
from
an
IP
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
The jury
someone
to
lean
on
MW.
And
each
of
the
e-mails
also
intimidate
MW
contemporaneously
into
paying
the
not
err
acquittal.
in
denying
discussed
alimony
only
his
That
plans
to
crystalized
his
Appellants
motion
for
judgment
of
36
D.
The Reasonableness of the Sentence
Finally, we consider Appellants three challenges to
his sentence.
United States
There are
of
justice
based
on
the
defendants
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.
It is
or
impediment
to,
justice
factual
predicates
for
that
finding
of
encompasses
all
of
the
perjury.
Id.
at
193
the
responsible
party.
The
jury,
inasmuch
as
it
found
him
At
sentencing
the
district
court
denied
Appellants
And the
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
calculated
the
district
court
improperly
considered
38
range
is
presumptively
reasonable.
Cir. 2014).
the
offense,
adequately
deter
similar
criminal
conduct,
See
18
306
U.S.C.
(observing
3553(a);
see
that
presumption
the
also
Louthian,
that
756
F.3d
at
within-Guidelines
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.
improperly
based
on
his
unpopular
political
views.
He
that
Government
the
[wa]s
trying
to
punish
[Appellant]
for
J.A.
was
serious,
and
because
39
MW
would
have
been
very
apprehensive
about
receiving
convicted of sending.
Appellant
district
prosecutor
court
threats
Appellant
was
remarks.
The
reads
too
immediately
attempted
the
to
much
into
rebuked
argue
these
the
that
Government
some
of
when
the
Appellants
law.
The
court
explained
that
Appellant
has
J.A.
1136-37.
In sum, we think the most that can be inferred from
the
sentencing
transcript
is
that
the
district
court
was
Finally,
Appellant
contends
that
the
district
court
not
fairness,
do
so
unless
integrity
proceedings.
Id.
or
the
error
public
(internal
seriously
reputation
quotation
marks
affects
the
of
judicial
and
citation
omitted).
Appellants PSR stated that his convictions were not
subject to grouping pursuant to 3D1.2(d) of the Guidelines.
That
is
maintains
correct
it
was
statement
of
nevertheless
3D1.2(d).
plain
error
But
not
to
Appellant
group
his
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
circumstances.
court
to
decline
to
group
Appellants
offenses
pursuant
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.
42
Id.
which
specifically
provides
that
multiple
counts
victim
U.S.S.G.
are
2A6.1
grouped
cmt.
together
(emphasis
under
[sect]
supplied).
By
3D1.2[.]
contrast,
Notes
not
to
875(b)
3D1.2
offenses
do
pursuant
unambiguously
to
Subsection
direct
(a)
grouping
or
(b),
of
the
44