# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 37 78

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.

Ja m es Dani el Hob go od
,

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 7 , 20 17 Fil ed : Au gu st 22 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re COLLOTON an d BENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , an d GERRARD, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka , si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ja m es Dan ie l Hob go od co nd it io na ll y pl ead ed gu il ty to in t e r s t at e st al ki ng , in
vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 26 1A( 2) . Hob go od ap pe al s an ord er o f th e d is tri ct co ur t 2
de n y in g hi s m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t. He arg ue s th at th e st at ut e can no t be

ap pl ie d to hi s co nd uc t wit ho ut vi ol at in g th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. He al so di sp ut es th e

am ou nt of res ti tu ti on or de red at se nt en ci ng

. W e reject th e co nt en ti on s an d affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

I.

Hob go od an d th e go ve rn m en t st ip ul at ed to th e fo ll owi ng fact s. In Sep te m be r 20 14
, KB m et Hob go od an d ha d a br ie f ro m an ti c rel at io ns hi p wit h hi m in Ri ch m on d, Virg in ia

. KB be ga n reb uf fin g Hob go od ’s ad va nc es , an d in Ja nu ary 20 15
, sh e m ov ed

to Ark an sa s. KB al le ge s th at Hob go od
, st il l li vi ng in Ri ch mon d, be ga n co nt act in g he r vi a e-m ai l, Face bo ok m es sa ge s, an d th ird -p art y te xt m es sa ge s to de m an d th at sh e
ap ol og iz e to hi m

in pe rs on for he r tr eat m en t o f hi m . KB di d n ot do so

.

KB al le ge s th at Hob go od th en crea te d pu bl ic ly acce ss ib le so ci al m ed ia

acco un ts in whi ch he po rtr ay ed KB as an ex ot ic da nc er an d pr os ti tu te

. Hob go od al so

se nt le tt ers to KB’s em

pl oyer th ro ug h th e m ai l an d ov er th e In te rn et cl ai m in g th at KB

was an ex ot ic da nc er an d pr os ti tu te

. Hob go od co nt act ed KB an d KB’ s fam il y by em ai l, st at in g th at un le ss sh e ap o l o g i z e d to hi m , he wou ld co nt in ue to m ak e th es e

r ep res en ta ti on s. Acco rd in g to KB, Hob go od ’s act io ns cau se d he r su bs t a n t i a l

em ot io na l d is tre ss an d c on tri bu te d t o h er n eed for sh or t-t erm ho sp it al iz at io n.

The Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d S t a t es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Law en fo rcem en t in ve st ig at or s ev en tu al ly co nt act ed Hob go od ab ou t hi s

co nd uc t. Hob go od ad m it te d se nd in g KB, he r fam il y , an d he r em pl oyer

co m m un ic at io ns by e- m ai l, te le ph on e, an d m ai l, in wh i c h he st at ed th at KB was an

ex ot ic da nc er. Hob go od to ld in ve st ig at or s th at he wou ld no t st op co nt act in g KB un ti l
he cau se d he r to lo se he r job
, or cau se d he r to “ rep en t” fo r th e un sp eci fie d wro ng th at sh e co m m it te d ag ai ns t hi m

. In ve st ig at or s al so were ab le to co rro bo rat e th at Hob go od

was res po ns ib le fo r th e pu bl ic ly acce ss ib le so ci al m ed ia acco un ts th at po rtr ay ed KB

as an ex ot ic da nc er an d p ro st it ut e.

In Octo be r 20 15
, a gr an d jury ch arg ed H o b g o o d wit h in te rs ta te st al ki ng , in
vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 61 A(2 ). Befo re tri al
, Hob go o d m ov ed to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t. He arg ue d th at § 22 61 A (2 ), as ap pl ie d to hi m , vi ol at ed th e Fi rs t
Am en dm en t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at be cau se Hob go od ’s com m

un ic at io ns als o vi ol at ed th e ex to rti on st at ut e, 18 U.S.C. § 8 75 (d ),
th ey co ns ti tu te d “ sp eech

. . . in te gr al to cri m in al co nd uc t” th at co ul d be res tri ct ed
wit ho ut vi ol at in g t he Fir st Am en dm en t. Se e Gib on ey v. Emp ir e S to ra ge & Ice Co

. , 33 6 U.S. 49 0, 49 8 (1 94 9) ; Uni te d St at es v. Petr ov ic
, 70 1 F.3 d 84 9, 85 5- 56 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

Hob go od co nd it io na ll y pl ead ed gu il ty to in te rs ta te st al ki ng , res erv in g th e rig ht

to ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e m ot io n to di sm is s. The co ur t se nt en ced hi m
to a te rm of im

pr is on m en t of 12 m on th s an d 1 da y

. The co ur t al so or de red Hob go od

to pa y KB $2 ,38 7.9 1 i n re st it ut io n.

II.

Hob go od fir st ch al le ng es th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to di sm is s. He ren ews th e
arg um en t th at hi s co m

m un ic at io ns to KB an d ot he rs were pr ot ect ed sp eech un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t

. He co nt en ds
, th eref or e, th at hi s co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 61 A(2 ) ba se d on th at sp ee c h in fri ng es on hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Hob go od

-3

-reas on s th at th e co nv ic ti on co ns ti tu te s an im pe rm is si bl e co nt en t-b as ed res tri ct io n of

sp eech

.

Gen eral ly sp ea k i ng , th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t fo rb id s th e go ve rn m en t fro m

res tri ct in g sp eech be cau se of it s co nt en t. Uni te d St at es v. St even s , 55 9 U.S. 46 0, 46 8 (2 01 0)

. Bu t co nt en t-b as ed res tri ct io ns are per m it te d “ in a few li m it ed area s.” Id

. at
46 8 (q uo ta ti o n o mi t t e d ). One su ch area or cat eg or y is “ sp eech in te gr al to cri m in al

co nd uc t.” Id

. (ci ti ng Gib on ey , 33 6 U.S. at 49 8)

. The di st ric t co ur t c o n c l u d e d th at Hob go od ’s co m

m un ic at io ns to KB an d to ot he rs were un pr ot ect ed sp eech in te gr al to cri m in al co nd uc t, be cau se th e co m m un ic at io ns were in te gr al to th e cri m e of ex to rti on

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 87 5( d)

. The refo re, th e co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e in te rs ta te st al ki ng
st at ut e was co ns ti tu ti on al as ap pl ie d to Hob go od on th e st ip ul at ed fact s of th is cas e.

Hob go od di sp ut es th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on on two gr ou nd s. Fi rs t, he

co m pl ai ns th at he was no t ch arg ed wit h or co nv ic te d of ex to rti on , so it was im pr op er fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to de em hi s sp eech in te gr al t o t h a t c r i me. Bu t th e di sp ut e is
whe th er th e in te rs ta te st al ki ng st at ut e m ay be ap pl ie d co ns ti tu ti on al ly to Hob go od ’s

co nd uc t, so it is pro pe r to co ns id er t he na tu re o f th at co nd uc t. If we a ss um e fo r th e

sa ke of an al y si s th at so m e ap pl ic at io ns of th e st al ki ng st at ut e m ig h t i mp i ng e on
pr ot ect ed sp eech
, th en it is ne ces sa ry to ex am in e whe th er th e pa rti cu la r sp eech at is su e was un pr ot ect ed

. In so far as th e in te rs ta te st al ki ng st at ut e ov erl ap s wit h th e

ex tor tio n st at ut e, th e co ur t m ay co ns id er th at ci rcu m st an ce in de te rm in in g whe th er the

sp eech is pr ot ect ed

. In de ed
, th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s le ad in g de ci si on o n “s p eech
in te gr al to cri m in al co nd uc t” was no t ev en a cri m in al cas e, bu t th e Co ur t al lo wed a

re st ric ti on on sp eech th at en joi ne d th e co m

m is si on of a fel on y

. Gib on ey , 33 6 U.S.

at 49 7- 98
, 50 1- 02

. By th e sa m e to ke n, if Hob go od ’s sp eech co ns ti tu te d bo th st al ki ng

an d ext or ti on , th en th e co ur t was pe rm it te d to co ns id er whet he r ex to rti on at e sp eech
is pro te ct ed

.

-4

-Secon d, Hob go od co nt en ds th at he di d no t co m m it ex to rti on

. A pe rs on vi ol at es § 87 5( d) if he tra ns m it s a co m m un ic at i o n c on ta in in g an y th reat to in jure th e
rep ut at io n of a pe rs on wit h in te nt to ex to rt a “ th in g of va lu e” fro m th at pe rs on

. Hob go o d r e p e a te dl y co nt act ed KB by e-m ai l, th reat en in g th at he wou ld in jure he r
rep ut at io n by br oa dc as ti ng th at sh e was an ex ot ic da nc er an d pr os ti tu te , un le ss KB

ap ol og iz ed to hi m

. Hob go od as se rts th at an ap ol og y can no t be “ th in g of va lu e” un de r § 87 5( d)

. Bu t a “ th in g of va lu e” in cl ud es in ta ng ib le th in gs —s uc h as a “ se x u a l
rel at io ns hi p,” fo r ex am

pl e—a nd “ th e fo cu s of th e

. . . te rm is to be pl aced on th e va lu e whi ch th e de fen da nt su bjec ti ve ly at ta ch es ” to wha t he se ek s. Petr ov ic , 7 01 F.3 d at
85 8 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The st ip ul at ed fact s co nc ern in g Hob go od ’s effo rts to se cu re

a mea cu lp a fro m KB co ns ti tu te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp o rt a fin di ng th at an
ap ol og y fro m KB was a th in g o f va lu e to Hob go od

.

Hob go od al so as se rts th at hi s co nd uc t di d no t m ee t a “ wro ng fu ln es s”

req ui rem en t of § 87 5( d)
, be cau se he be li ev ed th at he ha d a l e g i t i m at e cl ai m to an
ap ol og y from KB. Ass um in g th at th e st at ut e in cl ud es th is el em en t, Hob go od ’s th reat s

were “ wro ng fu l” in th e se ns e th at th ey ha d n o c au sa l n ex us to a cl ai m of r ig ht

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ja cks on , 18 0 F.3 d 55
, 7 0 -7 1 (2 d Ci r. 19 99 ). His th reat s to di ss em in at e in fo rm at io n th at KB was an ex ot ic da nc er an d pr os ti tu te were no t rel at ed

to why he th ou gh t sh e owe d hi m an ap ol og y . Hob go od ’s sp eech is a far c ry fro m a

co ns um er co m

pl ai nt ai m ed at rece iv in g a refu nd or a cl ub man a ge r’s pu bl ic
id en ti fic at io n of m em

be rs who are d el in qu en t o n p ay in g t he ir d ue s. In th os e cas es , th e sp eak e r ha s a pl au si bl e cl ai m of rig ht to th e th in g of va lu e, an d th e th reat is
rel at ed to th at rig ht . Not so he re.

Fo r th es e reas on s, Hob go od ’s vi ol at io n of th e i n t e r st at e st al ki ng st at ut e al so

co ns ti tu te d ex to rti on

. Thi s co ur t he ld in Petr ov ic th at ex to rti on at e co m m un ic at io ns th at th reat en e d an ot he r’s rep ut at io n, an d co m m un ic at io ns carr y in g ou t th e th reat ,
were no t pr ot ec t e d b y t h e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. Petr ov ic
, 70 1 F.3 d at 85 5. Hob go od

co nc ed es th at ex to rti on at e sp eech is no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed

. Se e Uni te d St at es

-5

-v. Hut

so n , 84 3 F.2 d 12 32
, 12 35 ( 9 t h C i r

. 19 88 ); Uni te d St at es v. Qui nn , 51 4 F.2 d
12 50
, 12 68 (5 th Ci r. 19 75 ). The di st ric t co ur t th eref or e pr op erl y de ni ed Hob go od ’s

m ot io n t o d is m is s t he in di ct m en t.

III.

Hob go od al so ch al le ng es hi s sen te nc e. He arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d
in award in g rest it ut io n to KB fo r th e co st of m ov in g fr om on e ap art m en t t o a no th er in th e sa m e ap art m en t co m pl ex

. To jus ti fy res ti tu ti on , th e go ve rn m en t was req ui red

to pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en c e th at Hob go od ’s of fen se pr ox im at el y

cau se d th e m ov in g ex pe ns es

. 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 64 (b )(3 )(F)
, 36 64 (e). In he r writ te n vi ct im im pa ct st at em en t, KB st a t e d th at sh e was fri gh te ne d be cau se Hob go od se nt

co rres po nd en ce to he r ap art m en t, an d sh e im pl ie d th at sh e ch an ge d ad dr es se s to av oi d

st al ki ng by Hob go od

. Bas ed on th is ev id en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in

co nc lu di ng th at Hob go od ’s of fen se pr ox im at el y cau se d KB’s ch an ge in resid en ce an d
th e ex pe ns e th at it en ta il ed

.

* * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-6

-