United States v. Coalwell, 20-50869

Defendant Scott Coalwell was convicted by a jury on three counts of mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c).
He received concurrent prison terms: Counts 1 and 2 — 60 months each; Count 3 — 70 months; he timely appealed.
Coalwell challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for Counts 2 and 3, arguing the letters did not contain "threats."
The court reiterated the legal test: a "threat" is a serious statement expressing intent to inflict bodily injury and is judged from the perspective of a reasonable recipient familiar with context; the question is factual for the jury and reviewed under Jackson v. Virginia.
The Fifth Circuit held the evidence was sufficient to support convictions on Counts 2 and 3 and affirmed those convictions.
The court vacated Coalwell’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court clearly erred in applying a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2A6.1(b)(1) based solely on letter language and an investigator conversation—the enhancement requires overt conduct evidencing intent to carry out the threat, which was not shown; the Government did not prove the error was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that letters contained "threats" (Counts 2 & 3)	Evidence and language in letters would lead a reasonable recipient to view them as threats	Language could be reasonably read as non-threatening; insufficient to prove threat beyond a reasonable doubt	Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could find the threat element proved
Applicability of six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2A6.1(b)(1) for intent to carry out threats	Enhancement justified by threatening language and investigator conversation indicating intent	Enhancement requires overt conduct evidencing intent; letters/statements alone are insufficient	Vacated sentence — clear error to base enhancement solely on words/statements; no overt act in record; remanded for resentencing; error not shown harmless

United States v. Stoker, 706 F.3d 643 (5th Cir. 2013) (discusses elements of § 876(c))
United States v. Turner, 960 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1992) (defines "threat" as a serious statement expressing intent to inflict bodily injury)
United States v. Daughenbaugh, 49 F.3d 171 (5th Cir. 1995) (threat judged from viewpoint of reasonable recipient; recipient's reaction probative)
United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2014) (conflicting inferences resolved in favor of verdict on appeal)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Jordan, 851 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2017) (sentencing enhancement requires conduct evidencing intent)
United States v. Goynes, 175 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (same; words alone do not trigger enhancement)
United States v. Juarez, 866 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2017) (harmless-error analysis for sentencing errors)
United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2010) (principles on harmless error in sentencing)