United States v. White
670 F.3d 498
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- William White, leader of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, was convicted on Counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 and acquitted on the others.
- Counts 1 and 5 involved transmitting interstate threats under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c); Count 3 involved intimidating HUD tenants under § 1512(b)(1).
- Count 1 stemmed from a Citibank dispute: White threatened via email/phone after a settlement and sent a personal email with a link to a judge's Lefkow case, causing fear for Petsche and colleagues.
- Count 3 involved letters mailed to African-American HUD tenants, including a letter to a minor, with hateful language and an attached neo-Nazi magazine, leading tenants to fear retaliation.
- Count 5 involved a phone call to University of Delaware administrator Kerr with a deadly threat and online postings listing personal information of Kerr and the University President, prompting security measures.
- Count 6 involved two 2008 Communications to Richard Warman advocating his killing, posted publicly on neo-Nazi sites, viewed as threats by Warman but not directed threats to him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §875(c) require subjective intent to threaten? | White: Black imposes specific intent; must prove threaten. | Government: §875(c) is general intent; objective test suffices. | Objective test governs; no specific intent required. |
| Did the district court err in jury instruction on true threats? | White: jury should be told to require specific intent to threaten. | Government: Darby standard permits no subjective requirement. | District court properly instructed under objective true-threat standard. |
| Were Counts 1 and 5 proved as true threats to the recipients? | Government: messages would be understood as threats by recipients. | White: communications were political hyperbole protected by First Amendment. | Evidence supports convictions; reasonable recipients would perceive threats. |
| Did Count 6’s Warman communications amount to true threats? | Threats directed to Warman as part of a campaign could be true threats. | Threats were situational advocacy not directed at Warman with intent to threaten. | Acquittal on Count 6 affirmed; statements were not directed true threats. |
| Was the sentence properly calculated regarding vulnerable victims? | §3A1.1(vulnerable victims) should apply based on known vulnerability. | District court erred by applying outdated targeting standard. | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing to apply proper standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darby v. United States, 37 F.3d 1059 (4th Cir. 1994) (establishes general intent standard for §875(c))
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (U.S. 2003) (true threats defined; signals subjective intent in context of intimidation)
- United States v. Roberts, 915 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1990) (objective test for true threats based on recipient's view)
- United States v. Bly, 510 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2007) (confirms objective test after Black in the Fourth Circuit)
- United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (applies objective recipient test post-Black)
- United States v. Floyd, 458 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2006) (illustrates application of true-threat standard to threats)
- United States v. Mackey, not applicable (not applicable) (placeholder to maintain format if needed)