United States v. Rendelman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7200
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Rendelman was convicted at a jury trial on seven counts relating to mailing threatening communications under 18 U.S.C. § 876(c).
- Counts Two and Seven on appeal challenge alleged defects in charging § 876(c) offenses, sufficiency of the evidence, and potential constructive amendment of the indictment.
- The 2005 letter to the U.S. Marshals Service in Sacramento threatened to kill the President and was mailed from a Maryland facility.
- The 2006 letter to the Marshals Service in California threatened the President and White House personnel; the envelope was addressed to the Marshals Service, but the Enhancement Element potentially increased the penalty to 10 years if directed to officials covered by § 1114.
- The district court instructed Count Seven with an Enhancement Element and the jury found the enhancement satisfied; sentencing followed with Count Seven at 120 months concurrent counts 2–6 at 60 months each.
- On appeal, Rendelman argues Counts Two and Seven are legally defective, the evidence is insufficient, and there was a constructive amendment; the Fourth Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Counts Two and Seven properly charged § 876(c) offenses? | Rendelman argues the charges fail to allege § 876(c) properly. | Rendelman contends the language misstates elements or misidentifies addressees. | Counts Two and Seven sufficiently allege § 876(c) offenses. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to prove Mailing, Threat, and Mens Rea for Counts Two and Seven? | The government satisfied Mailing, Threat, and Mens Rea elements. | Marshals Service is not a living person; essential element not proven. | Evidence supports all elements; no plain error. |
| Was the Enhancement Element properly alleged and proven for Count Seven (and is it a constructive amendment)? | Enhancement element necessary to obtain 10-year maximum; indictment includes it. | Allegation misstates statutory language; risk of amendment. | Enhancement Element properly alleged and proven; no constructive amendment. |
| Were Counts Two and Seven constructively amended? | Prosecutor comments and instructions potentially altered the charges. | No actual amendment; evidence and instructions aligned with indictment. | No constructive amendment evident. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bly, 510 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2007) (meaning of 'person' under § 876(b) contrasted with § 876(c))
- United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2004) (addressed-to analysis includes contents of the threat)
- United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2004) (indictment sufficiency by words of similar import to statute)
- United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 1999) (constructive amendment doctrine; per se error)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence on appeal)