2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-3-2009 

# U SA v . W i lli am Lind s a

y , Jr . P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3406

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . W i ll i am L ind s a

y , Jr . " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 870. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/870H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 08- 3406

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. W IL L IA M T . L IN D S A Y , J R ., A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 00252- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 1, 2009 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d C H A G A R E S , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI AM OND, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t03, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . W i l l i am L i nds ay , J r . appea l s hi s convi ct i on byj uryform ai l i ng a thr eat eni ng comm uni cat i on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 876 and maki ng fal s e s t at ement s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1001. H e ar gues t he D i s t r i ctC ourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng pr i or b a d a c ts e v id e n c e in v io latio n o f F e d e ra l R u les o f

E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ) a n d 4 0 3 , an d th a t it e r r e d i n i n t e rp r e t i n g t h e “ t h r e a tt o i n j u r e ” r e q u i r e me n to f

1 8 U. S . C. § 8 7 6 . Be c a u s e we concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yal l ow ed the evi dence and corr ect l yi nt erpr et ed § 876, w e w i l l aff

i r m L i nds ay ’ s convi ct i on. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. A. L i nds ay ’ s appea l ar i s es outof hi s convi ct i on form ai l i ng an enve l ope cont ai ni ng a pow derys ubs t ance t hatappea r ed t o be anthr ax t o t he Penns y l vani a B ur eau of U nempl oym entC om pens at i on ( t he “Bure au”) and s ubs equent l yl y i ng t o author i t i es about hi s i nvol vementi n doi ng s o. H e has a hi s t oryof cont ent i ous i nt er act i ons w i t h t he B ur eau, w hi ch i s t he s t at e age ncyt hathandl es benef i t s forunempl oy ed ci t i zens , i ncl udi ng the di s t r i but i on of unempl oym entcompensa t i on benef i t s , as w el l as the col l ect i on of any B ur eau ove rpaym ent s m ade t o i ndi vi dual s l at erdeemed i nel i gi bl e forbenef i t s . L i nds ay3

h a d c o llec ted u n e m p lo ym e n t b e n e f its f ro m th e B u re a u a ro u n d e a rly2 0 0 4 , b u t in A p ril 2004, t he B ur eau f

i r s tnot i fi ed hi m thathe had r ece i ved nea r l y$1, 000 m or e than he w as el i gi bl e for . T he B ur eau c ont i nued t o cont actL i nds aybym ai l on a quart er l ybas i s i n an a ttem p t to se c u re h is re im b u rse m e n t o f th e o v e rp a ym e n t, bu t h e c o n sis ten tlyre f u se d to r epayt hi s amount . I n M ay2006, L i nds ays ubm i t t ed a ne w appl i cat i on forunempl oym ent benef i t s , w hi ch the B ur eau i ni t i al l ygr ant ed. H ow ever , upon fur t herr evi ew , the B ur eau r ever s ed i t s deci s i on and deni ed Li nds ay ’ s cl ai m and hi s s ubs equentappea l of i t s deci s i on i n N ovember2006. T he B ur eau then s enta l ett erdat ed M ar ch 2, 2007, not i fy i ng L i nds ay t hat he st i l l ow ed $ 96 0 from t he B ureau’s 2004 ov erpaym ent of ben efi t s. U p o n rec eipt o f th e lett er, L ind saytore itinto sm all p iece s, p lace d itin the return envel ope, added a l ar ge quant i t yof gr aypow der , and mai l ed i tback t o t he B ur eau on M a rc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e B u re a u re c e iv e d th e lette r o n M a rc h 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , an d w h e n K im G ot t s hal l , a B ur eau e m pl oy ee, opened the enve l ope, gr aypow derfel l out , cover i ng her a n d h e r w o rk sta tio n . G o ttsh a ll ale rte d h e r su p e rv iso r, w h o c o n tac ted th e b u ild in g sa f e ty offi cer , w ho t hen s um m oned the C api t ol pol i ce, quar ant i ned t en empl oy ees , and evacu at ed thi rty -s i x ad dit i on al em ploy ees from the o ffi ce. T he p oli ce w ere unab l e t o tes t t he pow der , s o t heycont act ed U . S. Post al I ns pect orM i chae l B ond. I ns pect orB ond det erm i ned att he s cene t hatt he gr aypow derw as nonhaza r dous and the l et t erw as a hoax, b u t to o k c u sto d yo f

th e e n v e lo p e a n d its c o n ten ts. G o ttsh a ll l a ter tes tifie d a t trial th a t,4

upon openi ng t he enve l ope, s he thoughts he had pos s i bl ybeen e xpos ed t o s om ethi ng d a n g e r o u s , b u tt h a ts h e d i d n o tf e a rf u tu r e i n j u r y f r o m L i n d s a y. D ur i ng hi s s ubs equenti nves t i gat i on, I ns pect orB ond pi ece d t he t orn- up paper to g e th e r a n d d e te rm in e d th a t it w a s th e M a rc h 2 , 2 0 0 7 le tte r t h e B u re a u s e n t to L in d s a y . H e al s o di s cover ed Li nds ay ’ s hi s t oryof adve r s e dea l i ngs w i t h t he B ur eau. H e then i nt ervi ew ed Li nds ay , w ho deni ed mai l i ng orhandl i ng the l ett er . L i nds ayt ol d I ns pect or B ond t hathe s hr eds al l l et t er s he r ece i ves fr om the B ur eau a nd thr ow s them i n t he tr as h at hi s boar di ng hous e r es i dence . L i nds ayi nt i m at ed thats om eone e l s e had r emoved t he cont ent s of the s hr edded l et t erfr om the comm on tr as h bi n, pl ace d i ti n t he r eturn envel ope a l o n g wi t h t h e g r a yp o wd e r , a n d ma i l e d i tt o th e Bu r e a u i n a n a t t e mp tt o f r a me h i m; L i nds ays ugges t ed thatperhaps hi s es t r anged w i fe, D aw n L i nds ay , m i ghthave done s o. Fur t heri nves t i gat i on contr adi ct ed Li nds ay ’ s s t at ement s t o I ns pect orB ond. A J une 2007 fi ngerpr i ntanal y s i s i dent i fi ed Li nds ay ’ s r i ghti ndex fi ngerpr i nt , and no other fi ngerpr i nt s , on t he enve l ope; D aw n w as appar ent l youtof the countr yw hen the enve l ope w a s m a iled ; an d a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e in d ica ted L in d sa yh a d a m o tiv e to f ra m e h is es t r anged w i fe be caus e theyhad a bi t t ers epar at i on per i od, dur i ng w hi ch Li nds ayl eft t hr eat eni ng m es s ages on D aw n’ s voi ce mai l and w as found i n cont empt of courtfor v iolati o n o f a p rotec ti o n fro m ab u se (“ P F A ”) o rde r. L i nds ayw as arr es t ed and c har ged i n a tw o- counti ndi ctm entform ai l i ng a th re a ten in g c o m m u n ica tio n in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 7 6 a n d m a k in g f a lse sta tem e n ts5

to a u th o ri tie s d u ri n g th e s u b s e q u e n t in v e s tig a tio n in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 0 1 . D ur i ng L i nds ay ’ s pr etr i al det ent i on, hi s cel l m at e r epor t ed t o i nves t i gat or s , and l at er t es t i fi ed att r i al , t hatL i nds ayt ol d t he ce l l m at e thathe mai l ed the l ett ert o t he B ur eau a nd t hen att empt ed t o fal s el yi m pl i cat e D aw n due t o t hei rhos t i l e s epar at i on. B. L i nds aypl eade d notgui l t yt o t he cr i m es and pr ocee ded t o t r i al . H i s couns el fi l ed a m oti on i n li m i ne seek i ng t o ex cl ud e m oti ve ev i den ce from the tr i al , i ncludi ng P F A orders , i ndi r ectcr i m i nal cont empt char ges , and otherexampl es of Li nds ay ’ s pr obl ems w i t h anger oraggr es s i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdefe r r ed i t s deci s i on on t he mot i on and, attr i al , deci ded t o excl ude evi dence of the PFA or der s , the cont empt char ges , and a r ecor di ng of a threa tenin g v o ice m ail L ind sayleft fo r D aw n , o n the b asis that this ev iden ce w as m o re p re ju d icia l th a n p ro b a tiv e . H o w e v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt a llo w e d th e G o v e rn m e n t to e licit t es t i m onyr egar di ng, and ar gue dur i ng openi ng and cl os i ng about , L i nds ay ’ s hi s t oryof di s put es w i t h t he B ur eau a nd hi s cont ent i ous s epar at i on fr om and chi l d cus t odydi s put es w i t h D aw n, t o t he ext entt hatt hi s evi dence w entt o L i nds ay ’ s m ot i ve t o comm i tthe cr i m es char ged. L i nds ay ’ s couns el obj ect ed numer ous t i m es dur i ng the cour s e of the tr i al an d the D istri ct C o u rtco n side red ea ch o b jecti o n . A t th e c lose o f tri al, the D istri ct C o u rt car eful l yi ns t ruct ed the j ur yon t he l i m i t ed us e i tcoul d m ake of the mot i ve evi dence . T he j ur yconvi ct ed Li nds ayof both char ges . L i nds ayfi l ed a mot i on fora new t r i al b a se d o n th e a d m iss io n o f th e m o tiv e e v id e n c e , an d a m o tio n f o r a ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l,6

ar gui ng t hatm ai l i ng an enve l ope w i t h pow derdoes nots at i s fythe “thr eatt o i nj ur e” r equi r ementof 18 U . S. C . § 876. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed both m ot i ons , and l at er s ent ence d L i nds ayt o t w enty - s even mont hs of i m pr i s onm entand tw o y ear s of s upervi s ed re lea se . L in d sa yf

iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. II. T he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 23 1, and w e exerci se j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. “W e revi ew t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on t o ex cl ud e or adm i tevidence fo r an abu se of di s cr et i on, butw e have pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . ” U nited S tates v. G i lm ore , 553 F. 3d 266, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor nan , 413 F. 3d 372, 377 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ) . W e mayr ever s e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ruli n g s w ith resp ec t t o R u le 40 4 (b) “ o n lyw h en theyare ‘clearlyco n tr ary t o r eas on and notj us t i fi ed byt he evi dence . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Kel l ogg , 510 F. 3d 188, 197 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B al t er , 9 1 F .3 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 )) . L i kew i s e, t o r ever s e “a D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s bal anci ng of pr obat i ve and unf ai r l ypr ej udi ci al qual i t i es of evi dence underR ul e 403, the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ‘ anal y s i s and r es ul t i ng concl us i on m us tbe arbi t r aryori r r at i onal . ’ ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. U

ni ver s alR ehab. Ser vs . (

P A) , I nc. , 2 0 5 F . 3 d 6 5 7 , 6 6 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 )).7

W i t h r es pectt o L i nds ay ’ s chal l enge t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the “thr eatt o i nj ur e” r equi r ementof 18 U . S. C . § 876, w e “e xer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of the l egal i s s ue of s t atut or ycons t ruct i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D ees , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 1 (3d C ir . 2006) ( ci t i ng L i e b e r ma n v . Ca mb r i d g e Pa r tn e rs , L . L . C. , 4 3 2 F . 3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 )); see al

so U ni t ed Stat es v. Zavr el , 3 8 4 F . 3 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). III . A. L i nds ayar gues t he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng the G overnm ent to p rese n t evid en ce at tri al of h is prior b ad ac ts, inclu d ing ex am p les o f h is an g er tow ard D a w n a n d th e B u re a u . R u le 4 0 4 (b ) p ro v id e s th a t: “Evi dence of othercr i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the ch ara cter o f a p erso n in o rde r t o sh o w ac ti o n in co n fo rm itythere w ith . It m ay , how ever , be admi s s i bl e forot herpurpos es , s uch as pr oof of mot i ve, oppor tuni t y , i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i t y , orabs ence of m is ta k e o r a c c id e n t . . . .” Fed. R . E vi d. 404( b) . T he Supr eme C our thas s t at ed thatevi dence advanc ed as an e x c e p tio n to R u le 4 0 4 (b ), su c h a s th a t o f a d e f e n d a n t’s p rio r b a d a c ts, is a d m iss ib le o n ly w hen: ( 1) t he evi dence i s offe r ed fora pr operpurpos e; ( 2) i ti s r el evantunderR ul es 402 and 104( b) ; ( 3) t he tr i al cour tdet erm i nes underR ul e 403 that“the pr obat i ve val ue of the sim ilar a c ts e v id e n c e ” is n o t “s u b sta n tiallyo u tw e ig h e d b yits p o ten tial f o r u n f a ir p rejud ice” ; and (4) the tr ial co u rt , u n d er R u le 10 5 , “sh all , u p o n req u est, instruct the ju ry th a t th e sim ilar a c ts e v id e n c e is to b e c o n sid e re d o n lyf o r th e p ro p e r p u rp o se f

o r w h ich it8

w as admi t t ed. ” H

uddl es t on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 4 8 5 U .S . 6 8 1 , 6 9 1 -9 2 (1 9 8 8 ); see al so U nited S tates v. C ross , 3 0 8 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 2 0 -2 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). In th e in sta n t ap p e a l, L i n d s a yc h a l l e n g e s t h e p r e s e n c e o f f a c t o r s o n e a n d th r e e . Al th o u g h n o tc o n t e s t e d , we not e that , i n acc or d w i t h fac t or s t w o and four , the pr i orbad ac t s evi dence ati s s ue w as r el evantand the D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yi ns t ruct ed the j uryr egar di ng i t s l i m i t ed purpos e. W hi l e w e have acknow l edged thatR ul e 404( b) i s “cons trued as a rul e of i ncl us i on r athert han exc l us i on, ” U n itedS ta tes v . Sc a rfo , 850 F. 2d 1015, 1019 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) , w e have al s o caut i oned thatthe governm ent ’ s r eas ons fori nt r oduci ng pr i orbad ac t s evi dence m aybe a c om bi nat i on of s how i ng a “cons equent i al fac tas w el l as . . . i m pugn[i ng] the def endant ’ s char act er . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jem al , 26 F. 3d 1267, 1272 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Sam

ps on , 980 F. 2d 883, 886 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ) . T her efor e, “w hen evi dence of pr i orbad ac t s i s offe r ed, the propo nen tm ustcl earl yart i culat e ho w that evi den ce fi t s i nto a chain of l og i cal i nferences, no l i nk of w hi ch ca n be the i nfer ence thatthe def endanthas the pr opens i t yt o comm i tt he cr i m e cha r ged. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Hi m elw r i ght , 42 F. 3d 777, 782 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t i ng Jem al , 2 6 F . 3 d at 12 7 2 ). L i nds ayar gues t he G overnm entus ed evi dence of hi s pr i orbad ac t s nott o s how m ot i ve, butr athert o demonstr at e hi s pr opens i t yt o comm i tthe cr i m es char ged, and t her ebyoffe r ed i tforan i m pr operpurpos e. D ur i ng the cour s e of the tr i al , the G o v ern m en t el ici ted e v iden ce that ind icated L ind sayh ad d ifficu ltyco n tr o ll ing h is an g er,9

p arti cu larl ytow ard D aw n . T h e G o v ern m en t asserts th at i t of fe red ev iden ce o f L ind say ’s angert ow ar d t he B ur eau a nd D aw n i n or dert o s how hi s m ot i ve fors endi ng the anthr ax hoax l et t ert o t he B ur eau a nd hi s s ubs equentat t empt t o fal s el yi m pl i cat e D aw n forthe c r i me . We a g r e e wi t h t h e Go v e r n me n tth a te v i d e n c e o f L i n d s a y ’ s a n g e rt o wa r d Da wn and the B ur eau goe s di r ect l yt o hi s m ot i ve t o comm i tthe tw o cr i m es char ged. T o t he ext entt hatL i nds ayar gues i tw as unnece s s aryforthe G overnm entt o pr es entevi dence demonstr at i ng t hathe had a m ot i ve t o s ugges ts om eone e l s e’ s cul pabi l i t yi n m ai l i ng t he let ter, w e d isag ree . L ind saysp ec ifi ca ll yim p li ca ted D aw n , an d the G o v ern m en t th ere fo re h a d re a s o n to s h o w L in d s a y ’s in c e n tiv e f o r s u g g e s tin g h e r i n v o lv e m e n t in th e c ri m e . T hus , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o al l ow evi dence of Li nds ay ’ s pr i or bad ac t s w as notcl ear l ycontr aryt o r eas on orunj us t i fi ed, and thatthe evi dence w as i ns t ead a dm i t t ed fort he pr operpurpos e of de m ons t r at i ng L i nds ay ’ s m ot i ve t o s end the anthr ax hoax l et t ert o t he B ur eau a nd t o i m pl i cat e hi s es t r anged w i fe f orthe cr i m e. L in d sa ya rg u e s, in th e a ltern a tiv e , tha t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in a d m itt in g th e p rio r b a d a c ts e v id e n c e b e c a u se th e d a n g e r o f u n f a ir p re ju d ice su b sta n tially o u tw eigh ed the p rob ati v e v alue u n d er R u le 40 3 . W e h av e stated that w h en a d istri ct co u rt “enga ges i n a R ul e 403 bal anci ng and art i cul at es on t he r ecor d a r at i onal expl anat i on for i t s det erm i nat i on, w e w i l l r ar el ydi s turb i t s rul i ng. ” I d. at785 ( ci t i ng Sam

ps on , 980 F. 2d a t8 8 9 ) . W h i l e we r e c o g n i z e t h a te v i d e n c e o f Li n d s a y ’ s a n g e rc o u l d h a v e h a d s o me prej ud i ci al effect on t he jury , w e cann ot concl ud e t hat the ev i den ce adm i t t ed w as so10

unfai rt hati t s pot ent i al forpr ej udi ce s ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghed i t s pr obat i ve val ue. T he m ot i ve evi dence w as hi ghl ypr obat i ve bec aus e Li nds ay ’ s hi s t oryof adve r s e i nt er act i ons w ith the B u rea u p rov ided ev iden ce o f h is po tential m o ti v e to s en d the a n thrax h o ax let ter, a n d L in d sa y ’s c o n ten tio u s s e p a ra tio n f ro m D a w n in d ica ted w h yh e m a yh a v e a ttem p ted to b lam e h er f

o r sen d ing the lett er. Fu rth er, th e D istri ct C o u rtli m it ed ev iden ce o f L ind say ’s angert o excl ude pas tepi s odes t hatw oul d have be en undul ypr ej udi ci al , s uch as the re c o rd in g o f

a th re a te n in g v o ic e m a il h e le f t f o r D a w n a n d h is v io la tio n o f a P F A o rd e r. I ti s notdi ffi cul tforus t o concl ude, her e, thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s bal anci ng of the evi dence i n ques t i on w as notarbi t r aryori r r at i onal . T her efor e, w e conc l ude thatal l four fa ctors re q u ir ed fo r th e a d m issi o n o f th e m o ti v e e v iden ce at i ssu e u n d er R u le 40 4 (b) w ere sa tisf ied a n d , ac c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in a d m itt in g th is e v id e n c e a t L in d sa y ’s tria l. B. L i nds ayal s o ar gues t hatt he ac tof m ai l i ng an anthr ax hoax l ett ert o t he B ur eau does not , as a mat t erof l aw , s at i s fy18 U . S. C . § 876 beca us e i tdoes notcons t i tut e a “t hreatt o inj ure. ” T he st atute pr ov i des:

“ W ho e ve rkn owi ng l ys o d e po s i t s orc a us e s t o b e de l i ve r e d [ bythe U . S. Post al Ser vi ce] , anycomm uni cat i on w i t h orw i t houta name ordes i gnat i ng m a rk s u b s c ri b e d th e re to , a d d re s s e d to a n yo th e r p e rs o n a n d c o n ta in in g . . . anyt hr eatt o i nj ur e the per s on of the addr es s ee orof another , s hal l be fi ned u n d e r t h is title o r i m p ri s o n e d n o t m o re th a n f iv e y e a rs , o r b o th .”11

18 U . S. C . § 876( c) . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Zavr el , w e h eld th at “m ail ing a w h it e p o w d ery s ubs t ance i nt ended t o caus e fe arand di s t r es s pl ai nl ycons t i tut es a comm uni cat i on under § 876. ” 384 F. 3d 130, 134 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . R egar di ng the s t atut e’ s “thr eatt o i nj ur e” r equi r ement , w e s t at ed that“[a ] r eas onabl e per s on openi ng an enve l ope cont ai ni ng a w h ite p o w d e rysu b sta n c e , d u rin g th e h e ig h t o f th e a n th ra x c risis in th is c o u n try , w o u ld d o u b tl ess f

ea r i m m ed iat e a n d fu ture inju ry , ” a s the rec ipien ts of R o sem aryZ av rel’s anthr ax hoax l et t er s di d. A ccor di ngl y , w e hel d t hatthe thr eatof i m m i nentharm al one w a s s u f f ic ie n t to s a tis f

yth is p a rt o f

th e s ta tu te , a n d a f

f ir m e d Z a v re l’ s c o n v ic tio n . I d. at 136- 37. W hi l e Li nds aydoes notdi s put e the “c om m uni cat i on” el ementof § 876( c) , he ar gues t hathi s l et t erdi d notcons t i tut e a “ t hr eatt o i nj ur e” be caus e the B ur eau e m pl oy ees a f f e c ted d id n o t f

e a r f u tu re h a rm f

ro m h im , an d h e re lies p rim a rilyo n th e d iss e n t in Zavr el fors uppor t . H ow ever , t he Zavr el m a jo rityh e ld th a t f

e a r o f im m in e n t h a rm is s uffi ci entt o s at i s fy§ 876’ s “thr eatt o i nj ur e” r equi r ement , butnevert hel es s concl uded as w ell that an an thrax h o ax let ter, w h ich “ co m m u n icates to the inten d ed v ict im the s en d er’s hos t i l i t y , ” coul d al s o “cr eat e an a ppr ehens i on of . . . futur e harm . ” I d. a t 1 3 6 -3 7 ; see al

so U ni t ed Stat es v. E vans , 478 F. 3d 1332, 1339 ( 11t h C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng that§ 876( c)

“ sim p lyd o e s n o t su g g e st a tem p o ra l li m itatio n to o n lyf u tu re a c tio n s” ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. D a v ila , 461 F. 3d 298, 304 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( s ame) . W e al s o di s agr ee w i t h L i nds aythat Zavr el i s fac tual l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om the i ns t antcas e mer el ybeca us e Li nds ay ’ s l ett er12

w as det erm i ned t o be a hoa x r el at i vel yqui ckl y . T her efor e, w e conc l ude thatm ai l i ng an an thrax h o ax let ter sati sfies th e “ threa t t o injure” req u ir em en t of § 8 7 6 an d that L ind say ’s act i ons fel l w i t hi n the pr os cr i bed conduc tof the s t atut e. I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m L i nds ay ’ s convi ct i on.