United States v. William White
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 183
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- William White (Appellant) sent multiple e-mails to his ex-wife (MW) between May 27 and June 7, 2012 threatening violence to compel alimony payments; four e-mails formed the basis of a four‑count indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 875.
- Three counts alleged violations of § 875(b) (threats sent with intent to extort); one count resulted in conviction under the lesser included § 875(c).
- Evidence tying White to the messages: e-mail from his known address, activity from the same anonymized IP tied to his Facebook, recorded calls with co‑traveler/cooperator Sabrina Gnos discussing hiring someone to intimidate MW, and Gnos’s notes.
- White denied sending the e‑mails at trial; a jury convicted him on three § 875(b) counts and one § 875(c) count.
- District court sentenced White to 92 months (bottom of Guidelines range); White appealed raising multiple challenges to instructions, evidence, jury anonymity, sufficiency, and sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 875(c) requires proof of subjective intent to threaten after Elonis | White: jury instruction was erroneous because Elonis requires subjective intent (purpose, knowledge, or recklessness) to threaten | Gov’t: even if instruction erroneous, error was harmless because overwhelming evidence showed intent to threaten | Court: Instruction was legally erroneous post‑Elonis but error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on Count II because evidence showed purposeful threatening conduct |
| Whether § 875(b) requires intent to procure value by a wrongful threat and whether a "claim of right" defeats it | White: could not intend to extort alimony he legitimately claimed | Gov’t: §875(b) requires intent to procure value by a wrongful threat; threats of violence are inherently wrongful so claim‑of‑right unavailable | Court: intent to extort = intent to procure value through wrongful threat; threats of physical harm cannot be justified by claim of right; verdict stands |
| Use of anonymous jury | White: empaneling anonymous jury was improper and prejudicial | Gov’t: anonymity warranted by White’s history of intimidation, internet dissemination of juror info, potential sentence, publicity; court gave neutral admonition | Court: no abuse of discretion—strong grounds (prior conduct, publicity, sentence) and safeguards satisfied |
| Admissibility of Gnos’s handwritten notes (hearsay) | White: admission of notes was improper hearsay | Gov’t: notes corroborated by recorded statements; any error harmless | Court: even if hearsay admission erroneous, harmless because recordings and other evidence substantially corroborated notes |
| Sufficiency of the evidence that White authored messages, messages traveled in foreign commerce, and intent to extort/true‑threat element | White: challenged authorship, foreign commerce, and mental state | Gov’t: presented IP/e-mail/Facebook linkage, recordings showing plan to intimidate, MW’s fear; foreign commerce satisfied because sender in Mexico, recipient in Virginia | Court: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions upheld |
| Sentencing issues: obstruction enhancement, consideration of political views, grouping under §3D1.2 | White: obstruction enhancement (perjury) improper; sentence influenced by his political beliefs; counts should have been grouped | Gov’t: enhancement supported by rejection of testimony; court protected political speech and used bottom of range; grouping not plainly required | Court: enhancement supported; court did not punish beliefs and used bottom of range; no plain error on grouping; sentence reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (requires subjective mens rea for §875(c) prosecutions)
- United States v. White, 670 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2012) (prior 4th Cir. treatment of true threats and §875 analysis)
- United States v. Hager, 721 F.3d 167 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard for anonymous juries)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless‑error standard for jury instruction errors)
- United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1999) (extortion requires wrongfulness; distinguishes threats to injure)
- United States v. Coss, 677 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2012) (adopts traditional extortion concept for §875)
- United States v. Stewart, 420 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2005) (intent to achieve a prohibited result through a threat subsumes intent to threaten)