The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of 1

South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3659

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota

Jerome T. Schiefen, *

* [TO BE PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 6, 1998

 Filed: March 20, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerome T. Schiefen appeals from his conviction and 56-month sentence imposed

by the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, after a jury

1

convicted him of threatening a federal district court judge, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 115, and of obstructing justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. For the reasons

discussed below, we affirm.
-2-

In December 1995, Schiefen mailed to the home of a United States district judge

a letter stating that a judgment of foreclosure the judge had entered against Schiefen

was “unconstitutional . . . and invalid as it is signed by a Foreign Agent,” that Schiefen

would do “Whatever is done through necessity is done without any intention; and the

agent is not legally responsible”; and that the judge “should know what the punishment

for treason is after the finding of the supreme Court.” Attached to the letter was a

Public Notice of Treason, which stated in part that “TREASON by law, is punishable

by the DEATH PENALTY.”

Schiefen was charged with obstructing justice and threatening a federal official.

Schiefen filed several motions objecting to jurisdiction and venue in the United States

District Court for the District of South Dakota, which the district court denied. After

a two-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts. The district court

sentenced Schiefen to 56 months imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release, fined

him $10,000, and ordered him to pay his court-appointed attorney.

Schiefen&s venue and jurisdiction arguments are without merit. Because the

federal district court has exclusive jurisdiction over federal crimes, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3231, and the alleged conduct occurred in South Dakota, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 18,

jurisdiction and venue were proper in the United States District Court for the District

of South Dakota. Schiefen&s argument that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the

Constitution sets forth the exclusive parameters of the federal court&s jurisdiction is

meritless. In addition, the Federal Register notice requirements do not apply to federal

criminal statutes. See 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a) (matters to be published in Federal

Register); 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1)(A) (Congress excluded from definition of agency), 552

(material agencies must publish).

Schiefen argues there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. In

reviewing that argument, we must affirm if “#the evidence adduced at trial could

support any rational determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.&” United States
-3-

v. McKinney, 88 F.3d 551, 555 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoted case omitted). Under 18

U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), the key is “whether the defendant intentionally communicated

the threat . . . not that the threat was credible or could be immediately carried out.”

United States v. Stevenson, 126 F.3d 662, 664 (5th Cir. 1997). “Whether a particular

statement may properly be considered to be a threat is governed by an objective

standard--whether a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be

interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious

expression of intent to harm or assault.” United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d

1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1990).

Upon our review of the record, including the trial transcript, we conclude that

there was sufficient evidence presented showing Schiefen intentionally mailed the

letter, and that the jury could conclude that under the circumstances a reasonable

person would foresee that the district judge would--as he testified at trial he did--

perceive the language as a threat. The jury&s verdict is thus supported by the evidence.

Schiefen&s other arguments on appeal are without merit and do not warrant

further discussion. We deny all of Schiefen&s outstanding motions on appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.