United States v. Antonio Crawford, 665 F. App'x 539

Background

Crawford, an Illinois inmate, mailed letters to a federal courthouse in Maine threatening federal judges, prosecutors, and an assistant U.S. attorney; the letters included death threats and a rape threat.
He was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) for mailing threatening communications, found competent to stand trial, and pleaded guilty.
Sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment (at the low end of the Guidelines), consecutive to an undischarged state sentence.
New appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw as counsel as the appeal appeared frivolous; Crawford filed a pro se response raising several issues.
The court reviewed potential challenges to the plea colloquy (in light of Elonis), First Amendment and dismissal claims, Guidelines calculations (threat enhancement, criminal-history points, juvenile-offense points), competency timing, and recusal.
The court concluded each potential appellate claim was frivolous and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of guilty plea / Rule 11 colloquy after Elonis	N/A (prosecution)	Crawford might argue plea colloquy failed to explain mens rea element (Elonis requires more than mere knowledge)	Frivolous — plain‑error review; record (statements to investigators, multiple letters) shows Crawford intended threats, so no reasonable probability he'd have gone to trial
First Amendment challenge / motion to dismiss indictment	N/A	Crawford contends letters are political or protected speech	Frivolous — true threats are unprotected; guilty plea waived factual defenses
Sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2B3.2(b)(1) (threat)	N/A	Crawford argued victimless because letters didn’t reach recipients	Frivolous — delivery/receipt not required for §876(c) or the enhancement; content sufficed for threat enhancement
Criminal-history points (state + federal)	N/A	Crawford argued double-counting for same conduct	Frivolous — sentences were not from same charging instrument nor imposed same day, so both count
Juvenile-offense points under §4A1.2(d)(2)(A)	N/A	Crawford argued “sentence to confinement” should exclude supervised release	Frivolous — he served >60 days and was released within 5 years, so points apply
Competency evaluation timing / insanity defense	N/A	Crawford argued delay in ordering competency evaluation and implied need for insanity inquiry	Frivolous — evaluation properly addressed competency; insanity defense waived by failure to comply with Rule 12.2 timing
Judicial recusal after Crawford’s threatening letter to judge	N/A	Crawford argued judge should have recused after receiving his threat	Frivolous — threats made to force recusal; recusal not required where defendant intends to manipulate the judge

Key Cases Cited

Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (mens rea requirement for criminal threats exceeds mere knowledge)
Twitty v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 90 (2015) (remanding §876(c) conviction in light of Elonis)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (true threats analysis: such threats are unprotected speech)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (First Amendment limits on regulating expressive conduct, including threats)
United States v. Geisler, 143 F.3d 1070 (7th Cir. 1998) (§876(c) receipt not required; intent/knowledge analysis)
United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2016) (post-Elonis harmless‑error finding where defendant used direct declarative threats)
United States v. White, 610 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2010) (true threats not protected)
United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defenses and factual disputes)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (standard for appellate review of Rule 11 colloquies)