Mir iam Go ldm anCe darba

um , o f t he Un ite d S tat es D ist

ric t C ourt f

or t he So uth ern * Districtof New York, sitting by designat ion. 08- 3845- cr ( L); 08- 4526- cr ( C on) ; 08- 4787( C on) U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Li UNITED STATE S COURT OF AP PEALS FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUMMARY ORD ER
RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RECE DENT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RU LE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LE D W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A t a st at ed t erm o f t he U ni t ed Sta t es C ou r t of A pp eal s f

or t he Secon d C i r cui t , hel d at t he D ani el P a t r i c k M o y n i h a n C o u r t h o u s e , 5 0 0 P e a r l S t r e e t , i n t h e Ci t y o f Ne w Yo r k , o n t h e 1 8 d a y o f J u n e , t wo th t hous a nd a nd t e n. PRESENT : RALPH K . W INTER,

PETER W . HALL, Ci rcu it J

ud ges , MIRIA M G OL DM ANCE DA RB AU M, * District Judge
.

_______________________________________________ United States , Ap pe lle e , v. 08 -38 45 -cr (L ); 08 -45 26 -cr

(C on ); 08-4787-cr ( Con) Xi an g L i, De fen da nt- Ap pe lla nt.

______________________________________________ For Appellant: Xiang Li, pro s e , White Deer, PA Fo r Ap pe lle e: Ri ch ard S. Hartunian, Un ite d St ate s Atto rne y for the Northern D istrict of New York, John G. Dunc an , A ssi stant Unit ed St ate s Attor

ne y Of Counsel, Syracuse, N.Y.2

Ap pe al f rom a ju dg m ent of

the Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt fo r t he No rth ern

Di str ict of Ne w Yo rk ( Hurd, J. ). UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , it is her eby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt b e AFFIRMED
. Appellant Xiang Li, pro s e , app ea ls fr om his judgment of conviction on el even counts of trans m itt ingthreats in int ers tat e co mm erc e, in v iol ati on o f 18 U .S .C
. § 87 5(c ). W e assume the parties ’ familiarity with the underlying fac ts , th e pr oc edural his tory of the case, a nd the issues on ap pe al. Li rai ses thr ee m ain argum ents o n a

pp eal : (1 ) § 8 75 (c) is unc on sti tut ion al; (2) the re w as insufficientevidence tha t the sta tements upon which the charges were based const ituted “true threats ”; and (3) the evidence and t estimony subm itted attrial was forged, tamperedwith, and/ or pe rjurio us . W ith respect to his challenge to the constitutional ity of § 875(c), we are bound by our pri or decisions holding that provision constitut ional, as i t criminalizes only true threats. Se e U nited Sta tes
v. Fran cis , 1 64 F. 3d

12 0, 12 2-2 3 (2 d C ir. 19 99 ); Un ite d S tates v . K eln er , 534 F.2d 1020, 1028 (2d Ci r. 1 97 6). Si m ilarly , o ur p rec ed ent p rov ide s that t he s tat ute is c on sti tut ion al ev enth ou ghth ere is no requirement that the Government prove that the de fendant intended to carry out hi s threat s. Se e Fran cis , 164 F.3d at 122-23. In additi on to r ei te rating that the st atut e of conviction is constitut ional, we hold tha t the
co nv ict ion

is s up po rte d b y s uf

fi cie nt e vid en ce. A convic tio n fo r vi olatio n o f § 87 5(c ) is su pp ort ed bysu ff ici ent ev ide nc e whe re a

jur y m ayfi nd

that “an or din ary , re aso na

ble rec ipi ent who is f

am ili ar wi th t he co nte xt o f t

he [t hre at] wo uld

int erp ret it a s a t hre at o f i nju

ry. ” Un ite d Sta tes v. S

ov ie , 1223

F. 3d 12 2, 1 25 (2 d Ci r. 19 97 ) (i nte rna l qu otatio n and cit ati on om itt ed) (u

ph old ingco nv ict ion

wh ere statements wer e te lephonic threats such as “You ain’t on the bus, I'm gonna kill you, gotit? ”). The
rec ipi ents t est if

ied to t he statem ents t

he y rec eived. A ll o f t

he statem ents u

po n whic h L i w as
co nv ict ed inc lud ed ref ere nc es to the re cip ients’ deat h. Th is ev ide nc e wa s suf fi cie nt f or t he jur y to find that a rea sonable pers on would have percei ved the stat ements as threats. Id. Moreover, the verdict a lso was supporte d by the evidence of prior intera ctions between Li and the recipient s of the threats as well as t estimony regarding th e se cu rity measures take n as a resul t of the threat s. Se e Un ite d S tates v . Ma lik, 16 F.3d 45, 49 (2d Cir. 1994) (“pr oof of the effect of the all eged threatupon the address ee is highl y relevant ” to a determin at ion of whether astatement is a thr eat within the
m ean ingof

§ 8 75 (c) ). W e n owtur

n to L i’s a sse rti on s that th e ev ide nc e an d te sti m ony at tr ialwe re f org ed , tam

pe red with, or perjurious —asserti ons he advances i n various forms m ultiple times throughout his appel lat e briefs. Although we genera lly review evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discret ion standar d, see Unite d S tates v . B ell , 5 84 F. 3d

47 8, 48 6 (2 d C ir. 20 09 ), b eca us e th e ad

m iss ion of the various
ev ide nc e in

qu est ion wa s n ot c ontes ted

be low , w e re vie w t

he se c lai m s o nly

fo r pl ain err or, see Un ite d S tates v . Garcia , 4 13 F.3 d 20 1, 219 (2d Ci r. 2 00 5). Un de r th is s tan dard, rel ief is ava ila ble only where ther e is an “( 1) error, (2) that is pl ain, a nd (3) affects substanti al right s, and (4) the error ‘se rio us ly a ff

ect s th e f a ir n e s s , inte g rity, or p ub lic rep utatio n o f j ud ici al p roc eed ing s. ’” Be ll , 584 F.3d at 484 (quoti ng United States v. Weintr aub , 273 F.3d 139, 145 (2d Cir. 200 1) ). Li ’s c la ims of forge ry a nd tampering are unsupported and conc lusory and mainly consti tute a chal lenge to the credibil ity of the witness es. Such allega tions are insufficient to form a basis for rever sal. Se e U nited4

Sta tes v. Moo re , 5 4 F .3 d 9 2, 99 (2d Ci r. 1 99 5) ( ho ldi ngthat al leg ati on s o f p erj ury req uir e a de m on str ati on

that th e w itn ess es a ctu all y c om m itt ed pe rjury)
. Finally, with the exception of Li’s claim o f i neffective assist ance of counsel, we have considered Li ’s remaining clai ms o f e rr orand det ermine them to be without merit. As to the ine ff ect ive a ssistanc e o f c ouns el c lai m , w e d ecl ine to a dd res s th at c lai m

at t his tim e, as i t is m ore appropriat ely r aised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United Stat es v. Khedr , 343 F.3d 96, 99 (2d Ci r. 2 00 3) ( no tin g th is C ourt h as “ ba sel ine av ers ion to res olv ingine ff

ect ive ne ss c lai m s o n d ire ct
rev iew ” (i nte rna l qu otatio ns om itt ed)); Massa ro v. Un ite d S tates , 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2003) (expressi ng preference that an ineffective counsel claim be evaluated pursuant to a 28 U .S.C. § 2255
m oti on ). For the foregoing re asons, the judgment of the distr ict courtis hereby AFFIRMED. FO R T HECO URT: Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk