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 jur y 1 convic ted 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 reason s discussed below, we affirm.-2-

In December 1995, Schiefen mailed to the home of a United States district judge a le tter stating that a judgment of foreclosure the judge had entered against Schiefe n 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 “s hould know what the punishment fortreason is after the finding of the supreme Court.” Attached to the letter was a Public Notice of Tr

eason, which stated in part that “ TREASON by law, is punishable by the DEATH PENALTY .” Schiefen was charged with obstr ucting 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. Schie fen & s venue and jurisdiction arguments are without merit. Because th e fe deral 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 th e Cons titutionsets forth the exclusive parameters of the federal court & s jurisdiction i s meritless. In addition, the Federal Register not ice requirements do not apply to federal cr iminalstatutes. See 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a) (matters to be published in Federa l 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. I n reviewing that argument, we must affirm if “ # the evidence adduced at trial coul d support any rational determination of guilt beyon d a reasonable doubt. & ” United States-3-

v. McKinney , 88 F.3d 551, 555 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoted case omitted). Under 1 8 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 , 1 26 F.3d 662, 664 (5th Cir. 1997). “Whether a particular state ment may properly be considered to be a threat is governed by an objectiv e standard--whether

a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would b e interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a seriou s expressio n of intent to harm or assault.” United States v. Orozco-Santillan , 903 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1990). Up on our review of the record, including the trial transcript, we conclude tha t there was sufficient evidence presented showing Schiefen intentionally mailed th e lette r, and that the jury could conclude that under the circumstances a reasonabl e perso n 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. Sch iefen & s other arguments on appeal are without merit and do not warran t 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.