United States v. Felmo Hardeman, 449 F. App'x 408

Hardeman was convicted under the Assimilative Crimes Act for making a terroristic threat against a SSA customer service representative under Texas Penal Code § 22.07.
Hardeman admitted telling the representative, “I’ve got that gun waiting for you. I’ve got that gun.”
He argues the evidence did not prove an imminent threat of serious bodily injury and that his statement was not a threat.
Texas law defines imminent as near at hand and the threat must cause fear of imminent serious bodily injury; the jury was instructed accordingly through case law.
Evidence showed prior aggressive behavior, large bag rummaging, and the moment just before the statement, plus fear among other SSA patrons and the representative’s perception of imminence.
The district court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether threat of serious bodily injury was imminent	Hardeman	Hardeman	Imminence supported; rational jury could find near/mediate/impending threat
Whether the statement itself was a threat	Hardeman	Hardeman	Record not devoid of evidence of threatening statement
Whether prosecutorial remarks on imminence were error	Hardeman	Hardeman	Insufficient to show manifest miscarriage of justice

Stults v. State, 23 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. App. 2000) (focus on whether complainant feared imminent serious bodily injury)
Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 1995) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence on threat)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Walker, 327 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. App. 2010) (threats based on conduct and perception of seriousness)
Delgado, 256 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2001) (evidence not devoid of guilt based on testimony)
Thompson, 482 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2007) (prosecutor remarks must cast doubt on verdict for reversal)
Devine v. State, 786 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (definition and application of imminence under Texas law)