# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 17 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Deb or ah Mae Carl so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 12 , 20 14

Fil ed : J un e 2 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BRIGHT, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Deb or ah Mae Carl so n was co nv ic te d aft er a jury tri al of ni ne co un ts of m ai li ng

thr ea te nin g co m

m uni ca tio ns an d thr ee co unt s of m ai lin g ex to rti on at e co m m un ic at io ns

u n d e r va rio us pr ov is io ns of 18 U.S.C. § 87 6. On ap pe al

, Carl so n ch al le n g e s h e r

co nv ic ti on s fo r th e th ree co un ts of m ai li ng ex to rti on at e co m m un ic at io ns

, arg ui ng th at

th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th es e co un ts an d th at th e jury was im pr op erl yin st ru ct ed

. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91

, we affi rm in pa rt and

rem an d i n p art

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In Mar ch 20 10

, Carl so n be ga n br in gi ng he r pe ts fo r reg ul ar tre at m e n t a t th e

So ut hf or k Ani m al Hos pi ta l in Lak ev il le

, Mi nn es ot a. Bec au se sh e ha d m an y an im al s

an d be cau se sh e refu se d to g i v e t h e m m ed ic at io n he rs el f, sh e was at th e ho sp it al

of te n, so m et im es on a d a i l y b a s i s

. Aro un d th is sa m e ti m e, Dr. Kath eri ne Bel is le , a

ve te rin ari an at th e ho sp it al

, b e g a n rece iv in g th reat en in g le tt ers de ta il in g ho w sh e

wou ld be ki dn ap pe d, to rtu red

, an d rap ed

. The le tt ers wer e h a n d

- a dd res se d to

Dr. Bel is le at th e ho sp it al

, an d m os t were se nt an on y m ou sl y

, th ou gh so m e were

si gn ed “ Je ff.” Eig ht su ch le tt ers were ad d r e s s e d to Dr. Bel is le ov er a two -m on th

pe rio d— on e acco m

pa ni ed by a kn ife le ft in th e ho sp it al ’s m ai lb ox

. Two add it io na l

le tt ers were se nt to ot he r em pl oyees of th e ho sp it al

, de ta il in g vi ol en ce th at wou ld be

co m m it te d a ga in st bo th th e em pl oyees a nd Dr. Bel is le

.

Dur in g th is ti m e, th ree bu si ne ss es ne ar th e an im al ho sp it al re ce ive d th reat en in g

le tt ers th at were fa ls el y

si gn ed in th e n am e o f Dr. Bel is le . One l et te r was m ai le d t o

“ Targ et –S to re Man ag er” an d de m an de d th at $5 0,0 00 be br ou gh t t o t h e h os pi ta l

ad dr es s o r “ I wil l s ho ot pe op le in y ou r pa rk in g l ot .” A sec on d l et te r was ad dr es se d

to “ Vall ey B u i c k Po nt ia c GMC St or e Man ag er,” an d de m an de d th at $2 5,0 00 be

br ou gh t to Dr. Bel is le ’s an im al ho sp it al or “ I wil l br eak win do ws on y ou r cars .” The

th ird le tt er was ad dr es se d to “ Sco tt Lak e Ve t e r i n a ry Cen te r,” a di ffer en t an im al

ho sp it al th an th e on e whe re Dr. Bel is le wor ke d, an d de m an de d th at th e cl in ic de li ve r

an im al m ed ic al su pp li es to Dr. Bel is le

, or el se sh e wou ld sp read ru m or s th at th e cl in ic

ov erch arg ed cu st om ers

.

Carl so n was in di ct ed an d ch arg e d w i t h n in e co un ts of m ai li ng a th reat en in g

co m m un ic at io n, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 87 6( c); two co un ts of m ai li ng a

-2

-th reat en in g co m m un ic at io n wit h in te nt to ex to rt, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 87 6( d) ;

an d a si ng le co un t of

m ai li ng a th reat en in g c om m un ic at io n wi th an in te nt to ex to rt,

in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 87 6( b)

. At he r tri al

, te st im on y was pr es en te d th at Carl so n

ha d be co m e in fat ua te d wit h Dr. Bel is le an d ha d cal le d th e cl in ic th reat en in g to sh oo t

ch il dr en at a ne arb y da y care if Dr. Bel is le di d no t mee t h e r a t a ga s st at io n. A

ha nd writ in g ex pe rt co nc lu de d th at it was “ hi gh ly pr ob ab le ” th at Carl so n ha d writ te n

th e le tt ers . A j ur y

fou nd Carl so n g ui lt y

on all co un ts

.

Co un t 10 of th e in di ct m en t al le ge d a vi ol at io n of 18 U

. S.C. § 87 6( b)

, whi ch

ap pl ie s t o:

W ho ev e r

, w i t h in te nt to ext or t fr om an y pe rs on an y m on ey or ot he r

th in g o f va lu e, so de po si ts , o r cau se s to be de li ve red , as a fo res ai d, an y

co m m un ic at io n co nt ai ni ng an y th reat to ki dn ap an y pe rs on or an y th reat

to in jure th e p er

so n o f t he ad dr es se e or

of a no th er . . . .

(Em ph as is a d de d)

. Thi s co un t ap pl ie d to th e le tt er ad dr es se d to “ Targ et –S to re

Man ag er,” fo ll owe d b y

th e ad dr es s o f a Targ et st or e. The l et te r st at ed :

Bri ng $5 0,0 00 to m e at [red act ed ] Ken ric k Ave in Lak ev il le Mn 4- 19 by

10 :0 0 a m or o n 4 -2 0 I wi ll sh oo t p eo pl e in y ou r pa rk in g l ot

. Kath eri ne Bel is le

Co un ts 11 an d 12 of th e in di ct m en t each al le ge d a v i o l a t io n of 18 U.S.C. §

87 6( d) , whi ch ap pl ie s t o:

W ho ev er, wi th in te nt to ext or t fr om an y pe rs on an y m on ey or ot he r th in g

of va lu e, kn owi ng ly so de po si ts or cau se s to be de li ve red

, as afo res ai d,

an y co m m un ic at io n, wit h or wit ho ut a na m e or de si gn at in g m ark

su bs cri be d th eret o, ad

dr es se d to an

y ot he r p e r

so n an d co nt ai ni ng an y

th reat to in

jure th e pr op ert y o r r ep ut at io n of th e ad dr es se e or of

an ot he r . . . .

-3

-(Em

ph as is ad de d)

. Co un t 11 ap pl ie d to a le tt er ad dr es se d t o “ Vall ey Bu ic k Pon ti ac

GMC St or e Man ag er,” fo ll owe d by th e ad dr es s fo r th e de al ers hi p. The en cl os ed le tt er

st at ed :

If y ou do no t br in g $2 5,0 00 to m e at [red act ed ] Ken ric k A v e in

Lak ev il le MN by 10 am on 4- 21 th at ni gh t or th e ne xt ni gh t I wil l br eak

win do ws o n you r car s.

Kath eri ne Bel is le

Co un t 12 ap pl i e d t o a le tt er ad dr es se d to “ Sco tt Lak e Vete rin ary Cen te r,” fo ll owe d

by the Vete rin ary Cen te r’s ad dr es s. Th e en cl os ed let te r st at ed :

I wan t m y an im al ho sp it al to ge t as m uc h bu si ne ss as po ss ib le so th at I

ge t m o re m on ey

. So I am go in g to ge t th e wor d ou t th ere th at y ou r

ho sp it al & ot he rs ov erch arg e pe op le an d th in gs li ke t h a t

. Howev er, if

y ou br in g us an im al m ed ic al su pp li es I wil l le av e y ou r pl ace o u t of it

. You co ul d le av e it ou ts id e ou r pl ace at ni gh t wit h a no te sa y in g whe re

it ’s fro m & if we can us e th e st uf

f I wil l cr os s your

pl ace o ff m

y li st

. Kath eri ne Bel is le

II . Dis cus si on

Ca r l s o n ap pe al s, ad va nc in g two arg um en ts

. Sh e fir st sa y s th at th e ev id en ce

pr es en te d at tri al was in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e th at sh e ha d th e req ui si te in te nt to ex to rt.

Her se co nd arg um en t is th at 18 U.S.C. § 87 6 ap pl ie s on ly whe n th reat en in g le tt ers are

m ai le d to a na tu ral pe rs on an d th at no reas on a b l e ju r y co ul d fin d th at th e le tt ers in

qu es ti on were ad dr es se d to a “ pe rs o n ” as th e st at ut e req ui res

. W e ad dr es s each

arg um en t i n t ur n.

-4

-A. Inte nt to ex to rt

“ Our st an da rd of rev ie w co nc ern in g whe th er th e ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t t o

su pp or t a co nv ic ti on is st ric t. W e rev ie w th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to

th e go ve rn m en t, res o l v in g ev id en ti ary co nf li ct s in fav or of th e go ve rn m en t, an d

acce pt in g a ll reas on ab le in fere nc es dra wn fr om th e ev id en ce t ha t s up po rt th e jury’ s

ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Bel l, 47 7 F.3 d 60 7, 61 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. W e wil l ov ert ur n a co nv ic ti on on ly if no reas on ab le jury

co ul d h av e fo un d t he de fen da nt gu il ty bey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Id

.

C a r l so n arg ue s th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th at sh e ha d t h e

req ui si te “ in te nt to ex to rt” un de r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 87 6( b) an d (d ) be cau se sh e di d no t

in te nd to “o b t a i n ” an y th in g fro m th e bu si ne ss es sh e th reat en ed

. In m ak in g he r

arg um en t, Carl s o n r e l ie s on Sch ei dl er v. Nati on al Org

. fo r W om en

, In c., 53 7 U.S.

39 3, 39 7 (2 00 3) , i n whi ch th e Su pr em e Co ur t h el d t ha t “ pe ti ti on ers di d n ot co m m it

ex to rti on be cau se th ey di d no t ‘obt ai n’ pr op ert y fro m res po nd en ts as req ui red by th e

Hob bs Act.” The Hob bs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 19 51

, is a cri m in al st at ut e th at pu ni s he s

who ev er affe ct s co m

m erce “ by ro bb ery or ex to rti on .” Und er th e Hob bs Act, th e te rm

“ ex to rti on ” is sp eci fic al ly de fin ed as “ th e ob ta in in g of pr op ert y fro m an ot he r, wit h hi s

co ns en t, in du ced by wro ng fu l us e of act ua l or th reat en ed fo rce, vi ol en ce, or fear

. . . .”

18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( b) (2 ).

In S c h e i d l er, pe ti ti on ers were an ti -ab or ti on act iv is ts who ha d us ed th reat s of

vi ol en ce to in ti m id at e wom en an d cl in ic st af f f r o m g oi ng to ab or ti on cl in ic s. No

de m an ds were m ad e fro m th e s e w o men to act ua ll y ha nd ov er an y th in g of ta ng ib le

va lu e. The Co ur t ru le d th at

, th ou gh th e th reat s were co erci ve an d un la wfu l, th ey di d

no t co ns ti tu te ex to rti on be cau se th e act iv is ts “ ne it he r pu rs ue d no r rece iv ed so m et hin g

of va lu e fro m res po nd en ts th at th ey co ul d ex erci se

, tra ns fer, or se ll .” Sch ei dl er, 53 7

U.S. at 4 05 (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

-5

-The pr es en t cas e di ffer s fro m Sch ei dl er in two ke y res pe ct s: The st at ut e in

qu es ti on do es no t de fin e th e te rm ex to rt; an d Carl so n di d de m an d it em s of va lu e, sh e

jus t di d no t se ek to ob ta in th em fo r he rs el f. As fo r th e de fin it io n of ex to rt, in an ot he r

cas e e v a l u a ti ng th e ap pl ic at io n of th e Hob bs Act, Sek ha r v. Uni te d St at es

, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t ru le d th at “ ab se nt ot he r in di cat io n, ‘Con gr es s in te nd s to in co rp or at e

th e well -s et tl ed m ean in g of the co m m on -la w te rm s it us es .’ ” 13 3 S. Ct

. 27 20

, 27 24

, (2 01 3) (q uo ti ng Ned er v. Uni te d St at es

, 52 7 U.S. 1, 23 (1 99 9) ). “ Ext or ti on req ui re[s ]

th e ob ta in in g of it em s of va lu e, typic al ly cas h, fro m th e vi ct im .” Id

. “ Obt ai ni ng

pr op ert y req ui res ‘not on ly th e de pr iv at io n bu t al so th e acq ui si ti on of pr op ert y .’ ” Id

.

at 27 25 (q uo ti ng Sch ei dl er, 53 7 U.S. at 40 4)

. Bo th Sch ei dl er an d Sek ha r to ok is su e

wit h th e fact th at th e res pe ct iv e de fen da nt s ha d no t act ua ll y so ug ht to de pr iv e an d/ or

ob ta in tr an sf

er ab le pr op er ty

. Here, ho wev er, th at req ui rem en t ha s be en m et : Carl so n

de m an de d m on ey

an d m ed ic al su pp li es —i te m s o f va lu e.

The qu es ti on th at rem ai ns is , do es it m at te r th at th e p la ce Ca rls on wis he d th e

m on ey to be de li ve red su gg es ts th at sh e he rs el f was no t in te res te d in ob ta in in g th e

m on ey an d s up pl ie s? The Seco nd Ci rcu it ha s reas on ed th at “ far fr om ho ld in g” th at

Hob bs Act li ab il it y req ui res th e ex to rti on of ta ng ib le pr op ert y rig h t s

, t he Su pr em e

C o u rt in Sch ei dl er “ si m

pl y cl ari fie d th at fo r

. . . li ab il it y to at ta ch

, th e r e mu s t b e a

sh owi ng th at th e de fen da nt di d no t m erel y se ek to de pr iv e th e vi ct im of th e pr op ert y

rig ht in qu es ti on , bu t al so so ug ht to ob ta in th at ri gh t fo r hi mse lf

.” Uni te d S ta te s v

.

Got ti

, 45 9 F.3 d 29 6, 30 0 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Howev er, th e Got ti co ur t

wen t on to su gg es t th at ha d th e pr ot es to rs in Sch ei dl er at te m pt ed to fo rce th e ab or ti on

cl in ic to tu rn ov er it s real pr op ert y to a “ th ird pa rty of th e ex to rti on is t’s ch oo si ng ,”

th is act io n wo ul d ha ve fit wit hi n th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s defi ni ti on of ex to rti on

. Id

. at

32 4 n .9.

W e ag re e wit h th e Seco nd Ci rcu it ’s an al y si s. In Sek ha r an d Sch ei dl er

, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t was co nc e r n e d w i t h th e type of pr op ert y so ug ht to be ex to rte d, i.e.

whe th er it is ob ta in ab le

, rat he r th an who in th e en d is do in g th e act ua l ob ta in in g. The

-6

-jury in th e pr es en t cas e was in st ru ct ed : “ To act wit h in te nt to ex to rt m ean s to act wit h

th e pu rp os e of ob ta in i ng m on ey or so m et hi ng of va lu e fro m so m eo ne th ro ug h

w r o n gf ul m ean s.” The le tt ers se nt by Ca rls on de m an de d th at la rg e su m s o f mo n e y

an d an im al su pp li es be br ou gh t to a cert ai n ad dr es s, or el se th e au th or wou ld fo ll ow

th ro ug h on he r th reat s. A r e a s on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th at Carl so n’s le tt ers

m an ife st ed th e req ui si te in te nt to ex to rt u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 87 6( b) an d (d ).

B. Mea ni ng of “ pers on ”

The t h ree le tt ers at is su e on ap pe al were ad dr es se d to : (1 ) “ Targ et St or e

Man ag er” in Co un t 10 ; (2 ) “ Vall ey Bu ic k Po nt ia c GMC St or e Man ag er” in Co un t 11 ;

an d (3 ) “ Sco tt Lak e Vete rin ary Cen te r” in Cou nt 12

. Carl so n ass ert s th at 18 U.S.C.

§ 87 6 ap pl ie s on ly whe n th reat en in g le tt ers are m ai le d to a na tu ral pe rs on

, no t whe n

th e ad dr es se e is a co rp or at io n. The di s t r i c t co ur t rem ov ed he r pr op os ed jury

in st ru ct i o n refl ect in g th is li m it at io n on th e de fin it io n of “ pe rs on .” “ W e typic al ly

rev ie w di st ric t co ur ts ’ ru li ng s co nc ern in g co nt es te d jury in st ru ct io ns fo r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n, an d we rev ers e on ly whe n an y erro r was pr ejud ic ia l. Howev er, whe n ou r

rev ie w req ui res st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n, it is an is su e of la w th at w e c o n s i d e r de

no vo .” Uni te d St at es v

. P e t ro vi c, 70 1 F.3 d 84 9, 85 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (in te rn al

q u o t a ti on s an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. If we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s

i n t e r p r et at io n of th e st at ut e res ul te d in th e om is si on of a req ui red el em en t of th e

of fen se

, “ we th en ap pl y ha rm le ss erro r rev ie w.” Pres to n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 12 F.3d

95 9, 9 60 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

At tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t di sc us se d th e in te rim jury in st ru ct io ns wit h th e pa rti es

in op en co ur t wit ho ut th e jury pr es en t. The in te rim in s t r u ct io ns co nt ai ne d th e

fo ll owi ng in st ru ct io n, nu m be r 25

, whi ch ha d be en ad op te d fro m Carl so n’s pr op os ed

in st ru ct io ns :

-7

-A writ te n co m m un ic at io n is “ ad dr es se d to an ot he r pe rs on ” if it is

ad dr es se d t o a n i nd iv id ua l, n at ur al pe rs on

. “ Ano th er pers on ” do es no t

in cl ud e an y

fir m , ass oc ia ti on , or c or

po rat io n.

To id en ti fy th e ad dr es se e of a co m m un ic at io n, y ou are no t li m it ed

to th e di rect io ns fo r de li ve ry on th e ou ts id e of t h e en ve lo pe or th e

pa ck ag in g, bu t m ay al so co ns id er th e sa lu ta ti on an d th e co nt en ts of th e

co m m un ic at io n in de te rm in in g to who m a co m m un ic at io n is ad dr es se d.

Ove r de fen se co un se l’s ob jecti on s, th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at “ pe rs on ” as us ed in 18

U.S.C. § 87 6, refe rred bo th to a na tu ral (h um an ) pe rs on as well as a co rp or at io n. As

a res ul t, th e co ur t rem ov ed in st ru ct io n nu mb e r 2 5 f ro m th e fin al jury in st ru ct io ns

.

The in st ru ct io ns reg ard in g th e req ui red el em en ts of Co un ts 10

, 11

, an d 12 rem ai ne d

un ch an ge d fro m th e in te rim in st ru ct io ns

. Fo r C o u n t 10

, in st ru ct io n nu m be r 21

pr ov id ed , in pa rt:

In or de r to su st ai n it s bu rd en of pr oo f fo r th e cri m e of th re a t e ni ng

co m m un ic at io ns in vi ol at io n of Tit le 18

, Uni te d St at es Co de

, S ect io n

87 6( b)

, as ch arg ed in Co un t 10 of th e In di ct m en t, th e pr os ecu ti on m us t

pr ov e each of th e fo ll owi ng th ree el em en ts be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t:

One

, th at th e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly m ai le d or cau se d to be m ai le d

a wri tt en co m

m un ic at io n, ad dr es se d t o “ Targ et – St or e Ma na ge r”;

Two

, su ch writ te n co m

m un ic at io n co nt ai ne d a th reat to in jure th e

pe rs on of t he ad dr es se e o r of an ot he r; a nd

Th re e

, th e de fen da nt in te nd ed su ch co m m un ic at io n to ex to rt fro m

an y pe rs on an y

m on ey or o th er t hi ng of v al ue

.

Ju ry in st ru ct io n nu m

be r 22 was gi ve n fo r Co un ts 11 an d 12 o f t h e i n d i c tm en t. It

pr ov id ed , in pa rt:

In or de r t o su st ai n it s bu rd en of pr oo f fo r th e cri m e of th reat en in g

co m m un ic at io ns in vi ol at io n of Tit le 18

, Uni te d St at es Co de

, Sect io n

87 6( d)

, as ch arg ed in Co un ts 11 an d 12 of t h e I n di ct m en t, th e

pr os ecu ti on m

us t pr ov e each of t he fol lo win g t hr ee el em en ts be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t:

-8

-One

, th at th e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly m ai le d or cau se d to be m ai le d

a writ te n co m

m un ic at io n, ad dr es se d to th e st or e m an ag er o f V al le y

Bu ic k Po nt ia c GMC in Co un t 11 an d ad dr es se d to th e Sco t t La ke

Vete rin ary Cen te r in Co un t 1 2;

Two

, su ch writ te n co m

m un ic at io n co nt ai ne d a th reat to in jure th e

pr op ert y or r ep ut at io n o f th e ad dr es se e o r of an ot he r; a nd

Th re e

, th e de fen da nt in te nd ed su ch co m m un ic at io n to ex to rt fro m

an y pe rs on an y

m on ey or o th er t hi ng of v al ue

.

Carl s o n mai n t ai ns th at th e rem ov al of in st ru ct io n 25

, th e req ui rem en t th at th e jury

fin d th at th e th reat en in g co m m un ic at io n was ad dr es se d to a na tu ral pe rs on

, w a s a n

erro r. Howev er, t he jury was ne ve r in st ru ct ed by t he co ur t th at a pe rs on co ul d be a

co rp or at io n; th e co ur t sa id no t h i n g a t al l ab ou t th e de fin it io n of “ pe rs on .” W ha t is

po te nt ia ll y pr ob le m at ic is th at in th e fir st el em en t of in st ru ct io n 21

, th e “ pe rs on of th e

ad dr es se e” in § 87 6( b) was rep l a c e d wit h “ Targ et

– St or e Man ag er.” Si m il arl y

, in

in st ru ct io n 22

, “ ad dr es se d to an y ot he r pe rs on ” was rep la ced by “ ad dr es se d to th e

st or e m an ag er of Vall ey Bu ic k Po nt ia c GMC” fo r Co un t 11

, an d “ ad dr es se d to th e

Sco tt Lak e Vete rin ary Cen t e r ” f o r Co un t 12

. The jury was no t as ke d to de te rm in e

whe th er each le tt er ha d be en ad dr es se d to a pe rs on

, a req ui rem en t o f t he st at ut e.

Howev er, th e jury wa s as ke d to de te rm in e whe th er th e co m m un ic at io n was in te nd ed

“ to ex to rt fro m an

y pe rs on ” so m et hi ng of va lu e. (Em ph as is a dd ed ). In al l th ree

c ou nt s th e jury fo un d th at th is el em en t ha d be en sa ti sf ie d, an d th at C a r l s o n h a d

in te nd ed to ex to rt f

ro m a pe rs on

.

Thi s co ur t ha s ne ve r ad dr es se d whe th er 18 U.S.C. § 87 6 ap pl ie s st ric tl y to

na tu ral pe rs on s, th ou gh se ve ral o t h e r ci rcu it co ur ts ha ve

, an d th os e co ur ts ha ve

reac he d va ry in g co nc lu si on s. In Uni te d St at es v. Bl y

, 51 0 F.3 d 45 3 (4 th Ci r. 20 07 ),

th e Fo ur th Ci rcu it ru le d th a t t he te rm “ pe rs on ” in se ct io n 87 6( b) co ul d ap pl y to th e

Uni ve rs it y of Virg in ia

. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at “ un de r or di na ry us ag e, th e te rm

‘p e rs on ’ is de fin ed as ‘a hu m an be in g, a bo dy of pe rs on s, or a co rp or at i o n

,

pa rtn ers hi p, or ot he r le ga l en ti ty th at is reco gn iz ed by la w as th e su bjec t of rig ht s an d

-9

-d u t i e s

. ’” Bl y , 5 10 F.3 d at 46 1 (q uo ti ng W eb st er’s Dict io na ry 16 86 (3 d ed . 2 00 2) )

.

Fu rth er, “ it is en ti rel y

reas on ab le to co nc lu de th at an art ifi ci al en ti ty, su ch as UVA,

can be th e v ic ti m

of a n e xt or ti on de m an d.” Id.

The Nin th Ci rcu it , s it ti ng en ba nc , a na lyzed th e te rm “ pe rs on ” as it ap pe ared

in 18 U.S.C. § 87 6( c), whi ch pr oh ib it s th e m ai li ng of a co m m un ic at io n “ ad dr es se d to

an y ot he r pe rs on a n d co nt ai ni ng an y th reat to ki dn ap an y pe rs on or an y th reat to

in jure th e pe rs on of th e ad dr es se e or of an ot he r.” The co ur t he ld th at “ § 87 6( c) refe rs

ex cl us iv el y to an in di vi du al

, or to a na tu ral

, pe rs on .” Uni te d St at es v. Hav el oc k, 66 4

F.3 d 12 84

, 12 86 (9 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (en ba nc ). W hi le § 87 6( c) is no t ta rg et ed at ex to rti on

li ke th e su bs ect io ns in th e pr es en t cas e, in r e ach in g it s de ci si on

, th e Nin th Ci rcu it

an al y zed th e who le of 1 8 U.S.C. § 87 6:

The te rm “ pe rs o n ” i s us ed no le ss th an twel ve ti m es in § 87 6. See 18

U.S.C. § 87 6. Th e t e r m is us ed in va rio us as so ci at io ns

, in cl ud in g:

“ rel eas e of an y ki dn ap pe d pe rs on ,” “ an y th reat to ki dn ap an y pe rs on or

an y th reat to in

jure th e pe rs on of th e ad dr es se e or of an ot he r,” “ th e

rep ut at io n of a de ceas ed pe rs on

, or an y th reat to accu se th e ad dr es se e or

an y ot he r pe rs on of a cri m e.” See id

. The se as so ci at io ns cl earl y req ui re

th at “ pe rs on ” m ean a na tu ra l pe rs on

. It s i mp l y m ak es no se ns e to

th reat en to ki dn ap a co rp or at io n, or in jure “ th e pe rs on ” of a co rp or at io n,

or tal k a bo ut a de ceas ed co rp or at io n.

Hav el oc k, 6 64 F.3d at 1 29 1.

Ci ti ng th e “ co m

m on -s en se an d lo ng -rec og ni zed pr es um pt io n of un ifo rm it y ” in

st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n, t h e Nin th Ci rcu it de te rm in ed th at be cau se it ha d id en ti fie d

m an y in st an ces in whi ch pe rs on mus t m ean a na tu ral pe rs on , it th eref or e m ean t t hi s

in al l in st an ces th ro ug ho ut th e st at ut e. Id . (ci ti ng Bro wn v . Gard ne r, 51 3 U.S. 1 15

,

11 8 (1 99 4) ). Thi s in cl ud es whe n it is us ed in th e ph ras e “ ad dr e s s e d t o an y ot he r

pe rs on ,” as it is in § 87 6( a),( c )

, an d (d ). Thi s co nt ras ts wit h th e Fo ur th Ci rcu it ’s

co nc lu si on

, th at th e ru le of un ifo rm us ag e do es no t ap pl y whe n “ a st at ut or y te rm ha s

-1 0-m

ul ti pl e co m

m on ly un de rs to od an d acce pt ed m ean in gs

, am on g whi ch a sp eak er m ay

al te rn at e wit ho ut co nf

us io n.” Bly, 51 0 F .3d at 4 61

.

In Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, th e Ten th Ci rcu it co ns id ered whe th er a “ pe rs on ”

un de r § 87 6 co ul d in cl ud e a go ve rn m en t of fic ia l, ad dr es se d in a th reat en in g le tt er by

hi s ti tl e. 37 6 F .3d 10 48 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 04 ). The co ur t no te d th at th e Sev en th Ci rcu it

ha d fo un d th at “ at le as t on e of th e pu rp os es of § 87 6 is ‘the pr es er v a t i on of th e

reci pi en t’s se ns e of pe rs on al sa fet y .’ ” Id

. at 10 53 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Am an

, 31

F.3 d 55 0, 55 5 (7t h Ci r. 19 94 )). The co ur t th us co nc lu de d th at th is pu rp os e req ui res

t h a t t h e “ pe rs on ” to who m th e co m m un ic at io n was ad dr es se d “ m us t be cap ab le of

ha vi ng a se ns e o f pe rs on al saf et y ,” i.e. m

us t b e a n at ur al pe rs on . Id.

Two ye a r s aft er Co ng res s pa ss ed 18 U.S.C. § 87 6, it pa ss ed a ve ry si m il ar

co m pa ni on st at ut e pe rta in in g to th reat s tra ns m it te d by m ean s of in te rs ta te co m m erce

ot he r th an th e m ai l, 18 U.S.C. § 87 5. S u b s e c t i on s (b ) an d (d ) of § 87 5 be gi n,

“ W ho ev er, wit h i nt en t to ex to rt f ro m an y pe rs on

, fi rm, a ss oc ia ti on , or co rp or at io n

,

an y m on ey or ot he r th in g of v a l ue

, tra ns m it s in in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce an y

co m m u n i c a ti on co nt ai ni ng an y th reat

. . . .” (Em ph as is ad de d)

. The go ve rn m en t

arg ue s th at th es e ad di ti on al te rm s m an ife st Co ng res s’s “ in te nt to pr ot ect no n- na tu ral

pe rs on s fro m ex to rti on de m an ds ” an d th at th e reas on Co ng res s di d no t in cl ud e th es e

te rm s in § 87 6 two y ears earl ie r was be cau se it wou ld ha ve be en “ su pe rfl uo us .” Yet,

why wou ld Co ng res s ha ve in it ia ll y th ou gh t th e te rm s su pe rfl uo us an d th en two y ears

la te r de ci de th at th ey were no t? One co ul d jus t as eas il y co m pa re th e two st at ut es an d

co nc lu de th at be cau se Co ng res s ex pr es sl y in cl ud ed co rp or at io ns in th e la te r st at ut e,

it m ean t t o e xc lu de th em

in th e ear li er o ne

.

W e are in cl in ed to ag ree wit h th e Nin th Ci rcu it th at th e c o n t e x t i n whi ch th e

te rm “ pe rs on ” is us ed in § 87 6 req ui res it to be a na tu ral pe rs on

, an d th e in cl us io n of

th e te rm “ co rp or at io n” in § 87 5 se rv es on ly to co nv in ce us fu rth er. W e co nc lu de th at

18 U.S.C. § 87 6 req ui res th e in te nt to ex to rt fro m a na tu ral pe rs on

, a fact whi ch m us t

-1 1-be de te rm in ed by a j ur y in or de r to reac h a co nv ic ti on . There fo re, t he di st ric t co ur t

erre d w h e n i t g a v e a jury in st ru ct io n th at rem ov ed th is qu es ti on fro m th e jury an d

red uc ed th e fir st el em en t of Co un ts 10 th ro ug h 12 to a pr es um pt io n th at wou ld be

sa ti sf ie d so lo ng as th e jury fo un d th at Carl so n ha d se nt a le tt er to each of th e na m ed

en ti ti es

.

W e ne xt tu rn to whe th er th is erro r was ha rm le ss

. “ A jury in st ru ct io n th at om it s

a s i n g l e el em en t of th e of fen se can be su bjec t to ha rm le ss erro r rev ie w.” Un i t e d

St at es v. Eva ns

, 27 2 F.3 d 10 69

, 10 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (ci ti ng Ned er, 52 7 U.S. at 8– 9)

.

A co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is ha rm le ss whe n “ it ap pe ars ‘bey on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at

th e erro r co m

pl ai ne d of di d no t co nt rib ut e to th e ve rd ic t ob ta in ed .’ ” Ned er, 52 7 U.S.

at 15 (q uo ti ng Ch ap m an v. Cal ifo rn i a

, 3 8 6 U

. S

. 18

, 24 (1 96 7) ). The co ur t as ks

“ whe th er th e reco rd co nt ai ns ev id en ce th at co ul d rat io na ll y le ad to a co nt rary fin di ng

wit h re sp ect to th e o m it te d e le m en t.” I d. at 19

.

A s a n in it ia l m at te r, we co nc lu de th at Carl so n’s arg um en t fai ls in reg ard t o

Co un ts 10 an d 11

, an d th at an y erro r in th es e jury in st ru ct io ns was ha rm le ss

. The jury

fo un d t h at th e res pe ct iv e th reat en in g le tt ers ha d be en m ai le d to “ Targ et –S to re

Man ag er” in Co un t 10

, an d “ st or e m an ag er of Vall ey Bu ic k Po nt ia c GMC” in Co un t

11

. Thi s us e of ti tl es is si m il ar t o t he cir cu m st an ces in Uni te d S ta te s v

. Dav il a, 46 1

F.3 d 29 8 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ). The re, th e th reat en in g le tt er in qu es ti on pu rp or te d to co nt ai n

an th rax an d was ad dr es se d to th e “ Co nn ect ic ut St at e’s Att or ne y ’s O f fic e.” Dav il a,

46 1 F.3 d at 30 8. The co ur t he ld t h a t t h i s la ng ua ge sa ti sf ie d th e na tu ral pe rs on

req ui rem en t of § 87 6 be cau se “ th e Co nn ect ic ut St at e’s Att or n e y i s a pe rs on .” Id

.

Si m il arl y

, he re we th in k th at no r e a s o n a b le jury co ul d co nc lu de th at th e st or e

m an ag ers of a car de al er s h i p o r of a Targ et are no t pe rs on s as req ui red by § 87 6( b)

an d (d ). W it h res pe ct to th e s e t w o c ou nt s, th e ve rd ic ts reac he d were un affe ct ed by

th e err or

.

-1 2-The le tt er at is su e in Co un t 12

, ad dr es se d to “ Sco tt Lak e Vete rin ary Cen te r” is

m or e am bi gu ou s. W e joi n th e Nin th Ci rcu it in em br aci ng th e id ea th at in de te rm in in g

to who m a th reat en in g le tt er was ad dr es se d, “ a co ur t i s n ot li m it ed to th e di rect io ns

fo r de li ve ry on th e ou ts id e of th e en ve lo pe or on th e pa ck ag in g, bu t al so m ay lo ok to

th e co nt en t of th e co m

m un i c a t i o n

, ” as well as an y sa lu ta ti on li ne

. Hav el oc k, 66 4

F.3 d at 12 86

, 12 96

. The Ten th Ci rcu it ha s si m il arl y he ld t h at “ at a m in im um

, th e

en ve lo pe an d th e sa lu ta ti on of a le tt er can bo th be co ns id ered in de te rm in in g whe th er

a co m m un ic at io n is ‘add res s e d to an y ot he r pe rs on ’” an d ha s no te d th at th e “ wor d

‘com m un ic at io n’ in cl ud es th e co nt en ts of a le tt er.” W il li am s, 37 6 F.3 d at 10 52 –5 3.

W hi le a Vete rin ary Cen te r is cl earl y no t a na tu ral pe rs on

, th e qu es ti on is whe th er th e

th reat co nt ai ne d i n t he let te r as a wh ol e was a dd res se d t o a pe rs on

.

The Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka co ns id ered a cas e in whi ch th e de fen da nt ha d m ai le d

an en ve lo pe co nt ai ni ng whi te po wde r to “ Uni te d of Om ah a Life In su ran ce Pro ces si ng

Dep t. Uni te d Stat es v. Nay lo r, No. 8:1 2- CR-3 78

, 20 13 W L 18 67 06 4 (D. Neb

. May

3, 20 13 ). The co ur t co nc lu de d th at it di d no t ne ed to reac h th e is s u e o f whe th er

“ § 87 6( c) on ly pr oh ib it s th reat s add res se d to na tu ral pe rs on s,” bec au se th e co nt en ts

of th e le tt er m ad e “ cl ear th at an y th reat was ad dr es se d to whi ch ev er Mu tu al of Om ah a

em pl oyee ha d t he m is fo rtu ne to op en th e le tt er.” Id. at *2 . The co ur t re as on ed th at

a p e rs on op en in g th e le tt er wou ld “ ex pe rie nc e fear or ap pr eh en si on fo r th ei r

im m ed ia te well -b ei ng ,” an effe ct th at co ul d on ly be in te nd ed fo r, an d in fli ct ed on

, a

na tu ral pe rs on . Id.

Eve n if th e Nay lo r co ur t’s reas on in g is pe rs ua si ve

, it is no t o b v i o u s ly

ap pl ic ab le to th e le tt er s en t t o t he Vete rin ary Cen te r. Th ou gh an en ve lo pe of wh it e

po wde r is cl earl y in te nd ed to fri gh te n a hu m an be in g (a co rp or at io n can no t be

po is on ed ), id

., th e le tt er ad dr es se d t o t he cli ni c th reat en ed da m ag e to th e rep ut at io n

of th e ho sp it al it se lf: “ I am go in g to ge t th e wor d ou t th ere th at y ou r ho sp it al & ot he rs

ov erch arg e p eo pl e . . . .”

-1 3-It is po ss ib le th at th e jury in te rp ret ed th e le tt er as a th reat to th e own er, or th e

m an ag er, of th e Vete rin ary Cen te r be c a u s e it refe rred to “ y ou r ho sp it al ” an d

in st ru ct ed th e read er to “ br in g” s up pl ie s— an act iv it y th at co ul d be un de rta ke n by

on ly a fle sh -an d- bl oo d pe rs on

. In de ed

, th e jury fo un d th at th e le tt er to th e cl in ic was

in te nd ed to “ ex to rt fro m an y pe rs on an y m on ey or o t h e r th in g of va lu e,” th e th ird

el em en t of Co un t 12

. It is al so po ss ib le

, ho wev er, th at th e jury as su m ed th at th e cl in ic

it se lf cou ld be co ns id ered a pe rs on un de r th e st at ut e as th e de fen se at to rn ey ha d no t

arg ue d ot he rwis e du rin g th e co ur se of th e tri al (an d co ul d no t ha ve be cau se he ha d

be en pr oh ib it ed fro m do in g so by th e di st ric t co ur t). As no te d by th e Fo ur th Ci rcu it

,

W eb st er’s Dict i o n a r y i nc lu de s th e wor d “ co rp or at io n” in on e of it s de fin it io ns of

“ pe rs on .” Bl y

, 51 0 F.3 d at 46 1 (ci ti ng W eb st er’s Dict io na ry 16 86 (3 d e d

. 2 0 0 2) ). 1

In de ed

, th e co nc ep t of co rp or at e pe rs on ho od ha s be en a m at te r of rece nt pu bl ic

di sc ou rs e. The re was no way fo r th e jur y t o d e t e rm in e, ha vi ng no t be en pr ov id ed

wit h th e en ti ret y of th e te xt of 18 U.S.C. § 87 6, th at th e st at ut e’s co nt ex t im pl ie d th at

“ pe rs on ” co ul d no t be a co rp or at io n. W e can no t de te rm in e ba se d on th e reco rd whi ch

li ne of r eas on in g t he jury to ok in reac hi ng it s v erd ic t. 2

The Dict io na ry Act it se lf pr ov id es th at “ [i]n de te rm in in g th e m ean in g of an 1

Act of Co ng res s

, u n l es s th e co nt ex t in di cat es ot he rwis e

. . . t he wor ds ‘pers on ’ an d

‘w ho ev er’ in cl ud e co rp or at io ns

, co m pa ni es

, [et c.,] as well as in di vi du al s.” 1 U.S.C.

§ 1

.

Co nt rary to th e di s s e n t ’s m is ch arac te riz at io n, we are no t co nc lu di ng th at

2

Carl so n’s le tt er was no t ad dr es se d to a na tu ral pe rs o n; in fact we ack no wled ge th at

a jury co ul d reas on ab ly co nc lu de th at it was

. W e are in st ead sa y in g th at th e rec or d

do es no t al lo w us to kn ow on e way or th e ot he r whe th er th e jury act ua ll y fo un d each

req ui red el em en t of th e of fen se t o b e s a t is fie d. As cat al og ue d ab ov e, co ur ts ha ve

co ns is te nt ly he ld th at th e co nt ex t an d co nt en ts of a le tt er m ay be us ed in de te rm in in g

whe th er t he let te r was in te nd ed for a pe rs on , eve n i f th e sa lu ta ti on it se lf l is ts on ly a

co rp or at io n. Fo r th is reas on we th in k ou r r u l i n g a p p l ie s to a sm al le r su bs et of 18

U.S.C. § 87 6 cas es th an th e d i s s e n t t h reat en s. The re wil l be so m e le tt ers th at fal l

ou ts id e th e reac h of 18 U.S.C. § 87 6 be cau se a jury co n cl ud es th ey were ad dr es se d

-1 4-By ru li ng th at 18 U.S.C. § 87 6 co ul d be sa ti sf ie d by le tt ers ad dr es se d to

co rp or at io ns

, th e di st ric t co ur t rem ov ed th is di sc us si on fro m th e tri al

. If in te rim jury

in st ru ct io n 25 ha d no t be en im pr op erl y rem ov ed

, we can no t sa y be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t th at th e jury wou ld ha ve reac he d th e sa m e co nc lu si on in el em en t th ree of Co un t

12 —t ha t th e le tt er was in te nd ed to ex to rt fro m a pe rs on

. Thu s, we al so can no t pr ed ic t

whe th er th e jury wou ld ha ve fo un d th e fir st req ui rem en t of Co un t 12 —t ha t th e le tt er

ha d be en ad dr es se d to a pe rs on —s at is fie d ei th er. W e th in k th at th e “ reco rd co nt ai ns

ev id en ce th at co ul d rat io na ll y le ad to a co nt rary fin di ng wit h res pe ct to [th is ] om it te d

el em en t,” Ned er, 52 7 U.S. at 19

, i.e., a jury co ul d rat io na ll y co nc lu de th at Carl so n’s

le tt er to th e Vete rin ary Cen te r was ad dr es se d to a co rp or at io n rat he r th an a n a t ur al

pe rs on

. Fo ll owi ng i t s e x a mi na ti on of th e reco rd

, if “ th e co ur t can no t co nc lu de

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e jury ve rd ic t wou ld ha ve be en th e sa m e ab se nt th e

erro r—f or ex am pl e, whe re th e de fen da nt co nt e st ed th e om it te d el em en t an d rai se d

ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to s u pp or t a co nt rary fin di ng —i t sh ou ld no t fin d th e erro r

ha rm le ss .” Id

. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at

, wit h resp ect to Co un t 12 on ly, th e juryin st ru ct io n e rro r was no t h arm le ss

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e rea so ns di sc us se d a bo ve , we affi rm Carl so n’s co nv ic ti on s u nd er

Co un ts 10 an d 1 1. We vac at e h er co nv ic ti on on Co un t 1 2 a nd rem an d t o t he

di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

t o a co rp or at io n, bu t we do no t th in k th is is an ab su rd res ul t, no r co nt r a r y t o t h e

st at ut e’s pu rp os e. See Uni te d St at es v. Man ni ng

, 92 3 F.2 d 83

, 86 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (th e

“t r u e g rav am en ” of an of fen se un de r § 87 6 is th e th reat whi ch di sr up ts “ th e

reci pi en t’s s en se of p ers on al saf et y an d wel l-b ei ng ”).

-1 5-LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I co nc ur in th e co ur t’s d e c is io n to affi rm Deb or ah Carl so n’s co nv ic ti on on

Co un ts 10 an d 11 . I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fr om

th e d eci si on to va cat e h er co nv ic ti on

on Co un t 12

. Rel y in g on th e Nin th Ci rcu it ’s de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v. Hav el oc k,

66 4 F.3 d 12 84 (9 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (en ba nc ), th e co ur t co nc lu de s th at th e te rm “ ad dr es se d

to an y ot he r pe rs on ” in 18 U.S.C. § 87 6( d) is li m it ed to na tu ral pe rs on s an d th eref or e

di d no t in cl ud e th e th reat Carl so n m ai le d to th e Sco tt Lak e Vete rin ary Cen te r

. I

di sa gr ee an d wo ul d t he refo re af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

The Co un t 12 is su e t u r n s on th e pr op er ap pl ic at io n of th e Dict io na ry Act, 1

U.S.C. § 1, whi ch pr ov id es th at th e wor d “ pe rs on ” in a st at ut e in cl ud es co rp or at io ns

,

co mpan ie s, an d ot he r in st it ut io na l en ti ti es

, as well as na tu ral pe rs on s, “ un le ss th e

co nt ex t in di cat es ot he rwis e.” In Ro wlan d v. Cal ifo rn ia Men ’s Co lo ny, 50 6 U.S. 19 4,

19 9- 20 0 (1 99 3)

, a di vi de d Su pr em e Co ur t co ns tru ed “ co nt ex t” in th is pr ov is o as

m ean in g th e te xt of th e st at ut e at is su e an d ot he r r e l a t e d act s, an d “ in di cat es ” as a

te rm “ ex cu si ng th e co ur t fro m fo rci ng a sq ua re pe g in to a ro un d ho le .” In de cl in in g

to ap pl y th e Dict io na ry Act in th at cas e, th e m ajor it y ack no wled ge d th at it m us t be

ap pl ie d if “ th e st at ut es in qu es ti on m an ife st [] a p ur po se th at wou ld be su bs ta nt ia ll y

fru st rat ed if we di d no t co ns tru e th e st at ut e to reac h art ifi ci al en ti ti es .” Id

. at 21 0- 11

.

I co nc lu de th at is pr eci se ly th e si tu at io n we face he re, as a sh or t fo ray in to hi st or y th e

Nin th Cir cu it ov erl oo ke d o r ig no red in Have lo ck m ak es cle ar.

Th e p r e cu rs or to § 87 6 was fir st en act ed in 19 32

, la rg el y in reac ti on to th e

br ut al an d no to rio us ki dn ap in g an d m ur de r of Ch arl es Lin db erg h’s in f a nt so n. See

Hor ace Bo m ar, The Lin db erg h Law, 1 Law & Co nt em p. Pro bl e ms 43 5, 43 5- 38

(1 93 4)

. The in i t i a l s t a t u t e co ve red th e sa m e gr ou nd as § 87 6( a)-( d)

, bu t was m or e

si m pl y word ed :

-1 6-[W] ho ev er, wit h in te nt to ex to rt fro m an y pe rs on an y m on ey or

ot he r th in g of va lu e, sh al l kn owi ng ly de po si t or cau se to be de po si te d in

an y po st of

fic e

. . . an y writ te n or pr in te d le tt er or ot he r co m m un ic at io n

. . . ad dr es se d to an y ot he r pe rs on

, an d co nt ai ni ng an y th reat (1 ) to in jure

th e pe rs on

, pr op ert y

, or rep ut at io n of th e ad dr es se e or of an ot he r or th e

rep ut at io n of a de ceas e d pe rs on

, or (2 ) to ki dn ap an y pe rs on

, or (3 ) to

accu se th e ad dr es se e or an y ot he r pe rs on of a cri m e, or co nt ai ni ng an y

de m an d or req ue st fo r ran so m or rewar d fo r th e rel eas e of an y ki dn ap ed

pe rs on

, sh al l be fin ed no t m or e th an $5 ,00 0 or im pr is on ed no t m or e th an

twen ty y ears , or b ot h.

Act of Ju l. 8, 19 32

, Pu b. L. N o

. 2 74

, 47 St at

. 64 9. As ex pl ai ne d by it s sp on so r, an

am en dm en t th at ad de d th e “ co nt ai ni ng an y de m an d or req ue st fo r ran so m ” pr ov is io n

“sim pl y m ak es it an of

fen se to de po si t in th e m ai ls a de m an d fo r ran so m f o r a

ki dn ap pe d per so n.” 75 Co ng

. Rec

. 88 52 (1 93 2) (rem ark s of Sen

. Pat te rs on ); se e 75

Co ng . R ec. 13 ,28 4 (rem ark s of Rep . C oc hr an ) (a p ur po se of t he bi ll “ was to am en d

th e po st al la ws so as to m ak e it a fel on y to us e th e m ai ls to de m an d ran so m whe re a

pe rs on ha d be en ki dn ap ed ”). Not hi ng in th es e rem ark s in ti m at e s th at a ran so m

de man d wou ld be un la wfu l on ly if m ai le d to a na tu ral pe rs on ; qu it e th e co nt rary

se em s cl earl y in te nd ed

. Yet by co ns tru in g “ pe rs on ” to m ean on ly na tu ral pe rs on s al l

twel ve ti m es th e wor d no w a pp ears in th e m or e el ab o r a t e s u b s ect io ns of § 87 6, th e

Nin th Ci rcu it an d no w th is co ur t ho ld th at th e st at ut e ap pl ie d to a de m an d fo r ran so m

ad dr es se d t o Ch arl es Lin db erg h, bu t no t to th e sa m e de m an d ad dr es se d to

Lin db erg h’s em

pl oyer, or to hi s ch ur ch

, or to an y ot he r “ no n- na tu ral ” pe rs on

. In m y

vi ew, no th in g co ul d m or e su bs ta nt ia ll y fru st rat e th e m an ife st pu rp os e of th is st at ut e.

Mo reo ve r, be cau se th e Dict io na ry Act in su bs ta nt ia ll y it s pr es en t fo rm was pa rt of th e

Uni te d St at es Co de in 19 32

, th is res tri ct iv e in te rp ret a t io n of “ pe rs on ” in § 87 6 is

co nt rary to th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e in it ia l st at ut e. See M o n e l l v. Dep ’t of So c.

Serv s., 43 6 U.S. 65 8, 68 8- 89 (1 97 8)

, qu ot in g Act of Feb

. 25

, 18 71

, § 2, 16 St at

. 43 1.

-1 7-The Nin th Ci rcu it

, an d no w th is co ur t, av oi d a reas o n ed ap pl ic at io n of th e

Dict io na ry Act to § 87 6 by sh eer jud ic ia l le ge rd em ai n. The twel ve us es of “ pe rs on ”

in § 87 6 in cl ud e us es th at ob vi ou sl y refe r to na tu ral pe r s o n s -- “ th e rel eas e of an y

ki dn ap pe d pe rs on ” in § 87 6( a), th e th reat to “ ki dn ap ” o r “i nju re” a pe rs on in

§§ 87 6( b) -(d ), an d “ th e rep ut at io n of a de ceas ed pe rs on ” in § 87 6( d)

. The refo re, th e

Nin th Ci rcu it m ajor it y reas on ed

, “ th e co m m on -s en se an d lo ng -rec og n i z ed

pr es um pt io n of un ifo rm it y co un se ls th at ‘p e r s o n ’ means a na tu ral pe rs on in

‘add res se d to an y ot he r pe rs on ’ as well .” Hav el oc k, 66 4 F.3 d at 12 91

. Fo r au th or it y

,

th e co ur t ci te d on ly Bro wn v. Gard ne r, 51 3 U.S. 11 5, 11 8 (1 99 4)

. In Br o wn, th e

Co ur t di d no te “ a pr es um pt io n th at a gi ve n t e rm is us ed to m ean th e sa m e th in g

th ro ug ho ut a st at ut e.” Bu t it c i t ed on ly Atl an ti c Cl ean ers & Dy ers

, In c. v. Uni te d

S t at es

, 28 6 U.S. 42 7, 43 3 (1 93 2)

, a cas e de ci de d le ss th an two m on th s b e f o r e t h e

pr ed eces so r to § 87 6 was en act ed

. In Atl an ti c Cl ean ers

, th e Co ur t he ld th at th e wor ds

“ tra de or co m

m erce ” di d no t ha ve th e s a me mea ni ng in se ct io ns 1 an d 3 of th e

Sh erm an Act, ex pl ai ni ng :

Mo st wor ds ha ve di ffer en t sh ad es of m ean in g an d co ns eq ue nt ly m ay be

va rio us ly co ns tru ed

, no t on ly whe n th ey oc cu r in di ffer en t st at ut es

, bu t

whe n us ed m o r e th an on ce in th e sa m e st at ut e or ev en in th e sa m e

se ct io n. Und ou bt ed ly, th ere is a na tu ral pr es um pt io n th at id en ti cal

wor ds us ed in di ffer en t pa rts of th e sa m e act are in te nd ed to ha v e th e

sa m e m ean in g. B u t th e pr es um pt io n is no t rig id an d read il y y ie ld s

whe ne ve r th ere is su ch va ria ti on in th e co nn ect io n in whi ch th e wor ds

are us ed as r e a s o na bl y to warra nt th e co nc lu si on th at th ey were

em pl oyed i n d iff

eren t p art s o f th e act wit h d iff eren t i nt en t.

* * * * *

It is no t un us ua l f

o r t h e sa m e wor d to be us ed wit h di ffer en t

m ean in gs in th e sa m e act

, an d th ere is no ru le of st at ut or y co ns tru ct io n

whi ch pr ecl ud es th e co ur ts fro m gi vi ng to th e wor d th e m ean in g whi ch

th e le gi sl at ur e in te nd ed it sh ou ld ha ve in each in st an ce.

-1 8-Id

. at 43 3 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. The Co ur t’s de ci si on in Bro wn was no t to th e co nt rary,

an d Atl an ti c Cl ean ers was co ns tru ed an d ap pl ie d a s w r i t t e n in Gen eral Dy na m ic s

Lan d S y st em s, In c. v. Cl in e, 54 0 U.S. 5 81 , 59 5- 96 (20 04 ), an d c as es cit ed

.

App lying th es e pr in ci pl es

, I wou ld ap pl y th e Dict io na ry Act to § 87 6 co ns is te nt

wit h th e Fo ur th Ci rcu it ’s in te rp ret at io n of § 87 6( b) in Uni te d St at es v. Bl y

, 51 0 F.3 d

45 3, 46 0- 61 (4 th Ci r. 20 07 ), an d 46 7 (Mo tz

, J., co nc ur rin g)

, an d wit h th e co nc ur rin g 3

op in io n in Hav el oc k, 66 4 F.3 d at 12 97 -1 30 2 (Sm it h, J., co nc ur rin g) : whe n an y

su bs ect io n us e s t h e w o r d “ pe rs on ” in a way th at can ap pl y on ly to na tu ral pe rs on s,

su ch as ki dn ap ed pe rs on

, in jure d pe rs on

, or de ceas e d p ers on

, th en th e co nt ex t

ob vi ou sl y in di cat es th at th e br oa de r Dict io na ry Act de fin it io n do es no t a p p l y. Bu t

whe n “ pe rs on ” is us ed m or e br oa dl y

, su ch as “ in te nt to ex to rt fro m an y pe rs o n ” or

“ ad dr es se d to an y ot he r pe rs on ,” th en th e m an ife st pu rp os e of th e st at ut e is ob vi ou sl y

se rv ed by ap pl y in g th e Dict io na ry Act def in it io n to th at sp eci fic us e, an d i t m us t be

as su m ed th at Co ng res s s o i nt en de d.

The co ur t’s st ra i ne d an d te xt ua ll y il lo gi cal co nt rary in te rp ret at io n of § 87 6

pr od uc es res ul ts th at can on ly be la be le d abs ur d. Fo r ex am pl e, a lett er m ai le d to an

em pl oyer th reat en in g to ki dn ap on e o f it s dr iv ers or bl ow up a faci li ty whe n

em pl oyees are pr es en t un le ss a ran so m is pa id wil l no t vi ol at e th e st at ut e be cau se th e

th rea t t o k i dn ap or in

jure a na tu ral pe rs on was no t ad dr es se d to a na tu ral pe rs on

. I

co nc lu de th is is co nt rary to th e pl ai n m ean in g an d ob vi ou s pu rp os e of th e st at ut e an d

th eref or e res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

An ad di ti on al is su e in Bl y was whe th er th e st at ut e ap pl ie d to a th reat to in jure 3

pe rs on s m ai le d t o t he Uni ve rs it y of Vi rg in ia , a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty.

-1 9-