United States v. Chipunov, 23-2046

Georgiy Chipunov was convicted by a jury for making bomb hoax calls about a courthouse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1038(a)(1) and 844(i).
The conviction followed two 911 calls reporting a bomb was in the courthouse.
Chipunov appealed the conviction on two main grounds: the indictment and jury instructions failed to include the correct mens rea standard for a "true threat" per Counterman v. Colorado, and that the government did not show the courthouse was used in interstate commerce.
The appellate court reviewed sufficiency of the indictment de novo.
The court reviewed the jury instruction challenge—raised for the first time on appeal—under plain error but found no reversible error.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding all legal requirements satisfied.

Issue	Chipunov's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Indictment omitted subjective mens rea	Indictment deficient for omitting subjective intent	Statute does not require subjective intent element	No defect; indictment sufficient
Jury instructions on intent standard	Instructions defective under new Supreme Court law	Instructions were proper under current precedent	Instructions were not erroneous
Sufficiency of evidence on interstate commerce	No proof courthouse affects interstate commerce	Evidence shows courthouse affects interstate trade	Sufficient evidence; conviction stands

United States v. Awad, 551 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2009) (articulates standard for indictment sufficiency)
United States v. Castagana, 604 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010) (interprets mental state under bomb hoax statute)
United States v. Serang, 156 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that commercial property has per se effect on interstate commerce)
United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for review of sufficiency of evidence)