N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. TYLER C HANC E B ATEM AN, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-30191

D.C . No. 3:18-c r-00042-TM B -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska T im othy M . B urge ss, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 3, 2021 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : C HR ISTEN an d B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s , a nd FR IEDM AN, ** Distric t Judge
. Ty le r B a te m an a

ppe a ls his jury c onvic tions for tra nsm itting thre at s in inte rstate c o m

m e rc e in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 875(c ). B ate m an a rgue s: (1) the distric t c o urt e rre d by

fa iling to instruct

the jury on the de finition of a

true thre at; 

# FIL ED
JUN 11 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Pa ul L. Frie dm an, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of C olum

bia , sitting by

de signa t ion.(2) the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide n c e to c onvic t on e a c h of the e ight c ounts of

transm itting thre a ts in interstate c om m e rc e ; a nd (3) the distric t

c ourt e rre d

by
a pply ing a n obstruc tion of justic e e nha nc e m e nt a

t se nte nc ing. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, we re c ite only those ne c e s sa

ry to re solve the a

ppe a l. 1. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s “ form

ulation of jury

instruc tions for a

n
a buse o f disc re tion, . . . a

nd we re vie w de novo whe t he r the instruc tions missta te d
or om itte d

an e le m e nt of the c ha

rge d offe nse .” Unite d State s v . Hofus , 598 F.3d 1171, 1174 (9th C ir. 2010). “ [T] he om ission of a n e le m e nt is a

n e rror that is subje c t to ha

rm le ss-e rror ana l y s is.” N e d e r v . Unite d State

s , 527 U.S. 1, 15 (1999). The First Am e ndm e nt pe rm its the prohibition of “ true thre ats,” whic h

“ e n c om pa ss thosesta

te m e nts whe re the spe ake r m e ans to c o m m unic ate a se rious
e xpre s sion of a

n inte nt to c om

m it a n a c t of unla

w ful viole n c e to a

pa rtic u la r individual or group of individua ls.” Virginia v . Blac k, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003).

“ [T] he subje c tive te st se t forth in Blac k m ust be re a d into a ll thre at sta tute s tha t
c rim ina liz e pure spe e c h.” Unite d State s v . Bagdasarian , 652 F.3d 1113, 1117 (9th C ir. 2011). “ [W ] ith re spe c t to som e thre at sta tute s, we re quire tha

t the purporte d thre a t m e e t a

n obje c tive sta

nda rd in addition [to the subje c tive sta nda rd] , a nd for
som e we do not.” Id.
2In the distric t c ourt, B a te m an a rgue d the jury

should be instruc te d on the de finition of a

“ true thre a t.” He first propose d a jury instruc tion tha

t inc orporate d
an obje c tive sta

nda rd, but la te r withdre wit. B ate m an the n propose d a jury instruc tion tha

t re a d: A ‘ thre a t’ is a s e rious sta te m e nt e xpre ssing an inte nt to injure a pe rson a s distinguishe d from m e re idle or c are le ss ta l k , e x a gge ra tion, or som e thing sa i d in a joking m anne r. The distric t c ourt de c line d to instruc t the jury on the de finition of a

“ true thre at,” but inc lude d a s a

n e le m e nt of e a c h c ha

rge d offe nse tha

t “ [t] he de fe nda

nt transm itte d the c om

m unic a tion for thepurpose of issuing a thre at, or with knowle dge tha

t the c om m unic a tion would be

vie we d a s a thre at.” The e vide nc e pre se nte d to the jury inc lude d te xt a

nd Fa c e book m e ssa ge s B a te m an se nt in whic h he thre ate ne d, a m ong othe r things, to poison his fa the r and
a polic e offic e r with ric in; “ wa lk into a building with a

n AR 15” and “ hurt a

lot of pe ople ” ; “ hurt a

lot of dirty

c ops a nd the ir fam ilie s.” C onc e rning his form e r pla c e of e m ploy m e nt, he sta

te d “ If I de c i de to wa lk into Fa ste ne rs with a n AR 15 [sic ] y ou won’ t e ve r stop m e ,” . . . “ Pipe bom bs. Ga s gre na de s. Fla sh ba ngs. All tha

t.” B a te m an told his pa

re nts the y would “ [n] e v e r stop [him ] from hurting [the m ] should [he ] c hoose ,” but tha t the y c ould “ only postponeit” ; he c a lle d his fa the r a

“ fuc king re ta

rd” if his fa

the r thought B ate m an would not poison him with ric in; he

3“ prom ise [d] ” his fa the r tha t “ [b] y 2021 [his fa

the r] will not walk this Ea rth” ; a nd he inform e d the Anc hora ge Polic e De pa rtm e nt tha

t the y “ won’ t stop” B ate m an from “ k ill[ing] Offic e r Thom a s Ga ulke an d se ve ra l othe r pe ople .” B ate m a n a lso
se nt a m e ssa ge dire c tly

to Offic e r Ga

ulke , who wa s the n his m o the r’ s boy frie nd,
sa y ing “ [b] y

2020 y ou will no longe

r wa lk this world,”

and tha t the re wa s “ nothing [Offic e r Ga

ulke ] c an do” but “postponeit a nd m ake it worse .” B ate m an’ s te xt a nd Fa c e book m e ssa ge s a lso inc lude d wa rnings tha t he wa s not joking. For e xam ple , one te xt sta

te d, “ You think its just ta

lk,” an d “ . . . y o u just think its funny
. La ugh it off like a joke ,” followe d

by , “ [w] e will se e how funny it is whe n I am

c utting y ou to ribbons, M ike .” This c onte nt shows B ate m a n “ subje c t ive ly

inte n de d the spe e c h
a s a thre a t.” Unite d State s v . Ste w art , 420 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th C ir. 2005) (quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d ). Assum ing the distric t

c ourt e rre d by

fa iling to instruct the jury on the de finition of a

“ true thre a t,” we c onc lude the e rror wa s ha rm le s s be c a

use it is c le ar be y ond a re a sona

b le doubt tha

t a ra tiona l jury

would ha ve found the de fe nda

nt obje c tive ly

and subje c t ive ly

inte nde d to se nd a

true thre at . N

e de r , 527 U.S. a

t 19; Ste w art , 420 F.3d a

t 1018–19. 2. W e re vie w de novo thesuffic i e nc y of the e vide nc e an d will a ffirm the jury ’ s ve rdic t if, “ a fte r vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the
4prose c ution, any ra t iona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found the e s se ntia l e le m e nts of the
c rim e be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt.” J

ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (e m pha sis in origina

l). W e c onc lude the e vide nc e
— inc luding te xt m e s sa ge s, Fa c e book m e ssa ge s, a

nd a vide ota pe d c onfe s sion—

wa s suffic ie nt to c onvic t B a te m an on a ll c ounts. 3. W e re vie w for c le ar e rror the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings unde rly ing a

n obstruc tion of justic e se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt, a

nd we re vie w de novo “ [t] h e distric t c o urt’ s c ha ra c te riz ation of a

de fe n da nt’ s c onduc t a s obstruc tion of justic e within the

m e aning of [U.S.S.G.] § 3C 1.1.” U nite d State

s v . C a stroPonc e , 770 F.3d 819, 821–22 (9th C ir. 2014). Theobstruc tion of justic e
e nha nc e m e nt a

pplie s “ [i] f (1) the de fe n da nt willfully

obstruc te d or im

pe de d . . . the
a dm inistra

tion of justic e with re spe c t to the inve stiga tion, prose c ution, or
se nte nc ing of the i nsta

nt offe nse of c onvic tion, a nd (2) the obstruc tive c onduc t
re late d to (A) the de fe nda n t’ s offe nse of c o nvic tion a nd a ny re le v an t c onduc t; or (B ) a c lose ly re late d offe nse .” U.S.S.G. § 3C 1 .1. B ate m an se nt a le tte r to the prose c utor in whic h he sta t e d “ [i] t would bena ive to sa y ” he c ould not “ obta in the
m e ans to c arry

out” his thre a ts of “poisoning folks with ric in” a fte r his re le a se . B a te m an’ s le tte r to the prose c utor c ontinue d: “ For a ll y ou know, I c ould be plotting aga inst y o u! Your a d dre ss is public dom a in a nd e a sily found . . . . It’ s a s
5sim

ple a s a box of c hoc olate s.” W e c onc lude the distric t c ourt c o rre c tly

a pplie d the o bstruc tion of justic e e nha nc e m e nt. Se e Unite d

State s v . J ac k s on , 974 F.2d 104, 106 (9th C ir. 1992) (“ Whe re a de fe nda nt’ s sta te m e nts c an be re a sona

bly
c onstrue d a s a

thre a t , . . . the de fe nda

nt ha s obstruc te d justic e .” ). AFFIRM E D.

6