# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 25 03

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Tho m as P. McDi ll , Jr.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Rap id Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 17

Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 15 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, COLLO TON, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Fo ll owi ng a be nc h tri al be fo re a m ag is tra t e ju d g e, Tho m as McDi ll

, who

rep res en te d hi m se lf, was co nv ic te d of two vi ol at io ns of 36 C.F.R. § 26 1.3 (c), whi ch

pr oh ib it s “ [t]hr eat en in g, in ti m id at in g, or in te nt io na ll y in te rfer in g wit h an y Fo res t

of f i c e r

. . . whi le en ga ge d in

, or on acco un t of

, th e pe rfo rm an ce of du ti es fo r th e

pr ot ect io n, im

pr ov em en t, or ad m in is tra ti on of th e Nati on al Fo res t Sy st em or ot he r

du ti es ass ig ne d b y

th e Fo res t Se rv ic e.” He ap pe al s t ho se co nv ic ti on s. We reve rs e.I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Tho m as McDi ll own ed pr op ert y ab ut ti ng Bl ack H i l l s Nati on al Fo res t ne ar

Cu st er, So ut h Dak ot a. On May 20

, 20 13

, McDi ll vi si te d th e of fic e of th e Uni te d

St at es Fo res t Serv ic e’s Hell Can y on Ran ge r Dis tri ct

, whi ch m an ag es pa rt of th e Bl ack

Hil ls Nati on al Fo res t. He sp ok e wit h Tod d Goh l, a su pp or t se rv ic es sp eci al is t fo r th e

di st ric t, abo ut sl as h p il es (pi le s o f de br is fro m tri m m in g b us he s an d t rees ) on for es t

la nd

. Goh l te st ifi ed at tri al th at he was un ab le to an swe r al l of McDi ll ’s qu es ti on s an d

su gg es te d McDi ll fil e a Free do m of In fo rm at io n Act (FOIA) req ue st

. G o h l th en

refe rred McDi ll to ti m

be r st aff of

fic er Pat ric ia Hud so n be cau se Goh l th ou gh t sh e

m ig ht be ab le to an swe r m or e o f McDi ll ’s qu es ti on s. Hu ds on tes ti fie d t ha t s he an d

McDi ll sp ok e fo r ab ou t fo rty-fiv e m in ut es

. Acco rd in g to Goh l, McDi ll la te r ret ur ne d

to th e of fic e wit h a FOIA req ue st

. Goh l te st ifi ed th at al th ou gh th is was no t th e pr op er

way to fil e a FOIA re qu es t, t he Fo res t Se rv ic e in it ia te d a ct io n o n t he req ue st

.

On th e m or ni ng of Ju ne 11

, 20 13

, McDi ll vi si te d th e of fic e of th e Bl ack Hil ls

N a t i o n a l Fo res t Su pe rv is or an d sp ok e wit h Greg or y McGra na ha n, a ti m be r sa le

co nt ract in g of

fic er. McGra na ha n te s t i f i ed at tri al th at McDi ll as ke d hi m ab ou t

rem ov in g s om e b eet le -in fes te d t rees on fo res t la nd ne ar h is pro pe rty. McGran ah an

ex pl ai ne d th at McDi ll wou ld ne ed to ob ta in a pe rm it fro m th e di st ric t of fic e, an d

arra ng ed fo r McDi ll to m eet a Fo res t Serv ic e em pl oyee at th at of

fic e at 1: 30 p.m

. At

aro un d 11 :3 0 a.m ., McDi ll arri ve d at th e di st ric t of fic e. W he n he arri ve d, Goh l was

at th e of fic e. Goh l te st ifi ed th at McDi ll as ke d hi m fo r a le tt er pe rm it ti ng hi s fri en d

to rem ov e th e be et le -in fes te d tre es

. Goh l to ld McDi ll th at no on e wit h th e au th or it y

to pr ov i d e su ch a le tt er was av ai la bl e, be cau se th e ot he r Fo res t Serv ic e em pl oyees

were at an in te rn al di st ric t sa fet y m eet in g. Goh l in fo rm ed M c D il l th at so m eo ne

wou ld be av ai la bl e to sp eak wit h hi m aro un d 1: 00 p.m ., aft er t h e m eet in g ha d

co nc lu d e d

. McDi ll as ke d whe re th e m eet in g was , an d Goh l to ld hi m it was at th e

lo cal hi gh sch oo l.

-2

-McDi ll pr oc eed ed to th e hi gh sc ho ol

, whe re th e sa fet y m eet in g was co m in g to

a cl os e. Hud so n ha d at te nd ed th e m eet in g, an d McDi ll ap pr o a c h e d he r as sh e was

le av in g. Hud so n te st ifi ed th at sh e reco gn iz ed McDi ll fro m th ei r pr io r in te ract io n, an d

th at sh e was st art le d to se e hi m at th e hi gh sc ho ol be cau se th e sa fet y m eet in g was no t

pu bl ic

. Hud so n to ld hi m sh e was go in g to lu nc h, an d wou ld m eet wit h hi m be twee n

1: 30 an d 2 : 0 0 p

. m. th at da y

. McDi ll to ld he r th at he di d no t wan t to wait

. Hud so n

as ke d h im wha t sh e co ul d h el p h im wit h, an d M cDil l as ke d h er ab ou t cu tt in g d own

be et le -in fes te d tre es ne ar hi s la nd

. Hud so n sa id it was to o la te in th e se as on , an d th e

Fo res t Serv ic e wou ld no t is su e a pe rm it

. McDi ll as ke d wha t wou ld ha pp en if he cu t

th em an y way , an d Hud so n sa id he wou ld be is su e d a f i n e

. At th is po in t, Hud so n

te st ifi ed

, McDi ll was m ov in g in to he r sp ace an d sp eak in g in an ag gr es si ve to ne , an d

sh e fel t u nc om fo rta bl e an d in ti m id at ed

. Sh e ev en tu al ly tol d M cDil l t ha t s he wou ld

no t di sc us s th e m at te r an y fu rth er, an d McDi ll le ft. Ano th er em pl oyee, Kell y Hon or s,

te st ifi ed th at sh e h eard Hud so n u se an un ch arac te ris ti cal ly lou d vo ic e to res po nd to

McDi ll , and th at Hud so n re m ai ne d “ ve ry sh ak en ” aft er Mc Dil l l eft

.

Hud so n co nt act ed F or es t Serv ic e la w en fo rcem en t of fic er Eric Nels on , an d

ex pl ai ne d wha t ha pp en ed

. Sh e to ld hi m th at sh e th ou gh t McDi ll wou ld co m e to he r

of fic e an d th at sh e di d no t wan t to m eet wit h hi m

. Nels on t e s t i f i e d t h a t he

en c o u n t e red McDi ll in th e di st ric t of fic e pa rk in g lo t aro un d 1: 30 p.m

. th at da y

. McDi ll ex pl ai ne d to Nels on th at he wan te d a pe rm it to cu t do wn th e be et le -in fes te d

tre es

. He al so to ld Nels on th at h e wan te d to st art a bu si ne ss to rem ov e sl as h pi le s

fro m fo res t la nd

. Nels on is su ed a ci ta ti on to McDi ll fo r “ in te nt io na ll y in te rfer in g w

USFS em pl oyee in pr oc es s of he r du ti es ” in vi ol at io n of 36 C.F.R. § 26 1.3 (c) fo r hi s

c on du ct to ward Hud so n aft er th e sa fet y m eet in g. Nels on al so ga ve McDi ll a l e t t e r

ack no wled gi ng rece ip t of th e FOIA req ue st McD i l l h a d g i ve n Goh l. Nels on to ld

McDi ll th at th ey

wou ld be wil li ng to wor k wit h McDi ll aft er hi s FOIA req ue st was

fu ll y pr oc es se d an d ret ur ne d, bu t th at in th e m ean ti m e, McDi ll was to ha ve no co nt act

wit h o th er Fo res t Se rv ic e em pl oyees.

-3

-The le tt er Nels on ga ve McDi ll in di cat ed th at a Fo res t Serv ic e em pl oyee na m ed

M a t t Sp rin g wou ld co nt act McDi ll to pr ov id e hi m wit h in fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e

s l a sh pi le s. McDi ll di sc ov ered th at Sp rin g wor ke d at th e Fo res t Serv ic e ’s f i r e

m an ag em en t of

fic e in Cu st er an d de ci de d to vi si t th e of fic e to sp eak to Sp rin g. W he n

he arri ve d, Gwen Lip p, th e di st ric t fir e m an ag em en t of fic er, was le av in g th e bu il di ng

. Sh e te st ifi ed at tri al th at sh e w a s s ur pr is ed to se e McDi ll be cau se sh e was no t

ex pe ct in g an y vi si to rs to th e of fic e. Li p p i n f

o r med McDi ll th at Sp rin g was no t at

wor k th at da y , a nd of

fere d to as si st hi m in st ead

. Lip p t es ti fie d t ha t M cDil l s eem ed

an gr y an d fru st rat ed

. The y wen t in si de th e bu il di ng an d sa t in he r of fic e

. B e c a u s e

sh e fel t ne rv ou s ab ou t be in g al on e wit h McDi ll

, sh e as ke d an ot he r fir e m an ag em en t

em pl oyee to rem ai n in th e of fic e ne xt to he rs

. Sh e te st ifi ed th at sh e an d McDi ll sp ok e

fo r ab ou t fo rty m in ut es , a nd th at he ha d a “ ro ll er-c oa st er” de m ean or an d wou ld no t

st ay cal m

. Acco rd in g to Lip p, McDi ll to ld he r th at he was up se t be cau se he ha d be en

arre st ed fo r ha ras si ng a Fo res t Serv ic e em pl oyee, whe n he ha d si m

pl y be en tryin g to

ob ta in in fo rm at io n. Ev en tu al ly, Lip p a nd McDi ll ag reed on a pl an fo r Lip p to he lp

hi m fin d th e in fo rm at io n he so ug ht

. Afte r McDi ll le ft, Lip p co nt act ed Fo res t Serv ic e

la w en fo rcem en t an d ex pl ai ne d wha t ha pp en ed

. Nels on th en is su ed a se co nd ci ta ti on

to McDi ll fo r “ ha ras sm en t + in te rfer en ce w/ USFS em pl oyee in pr oc es s of he r du ti es ”

in vi ol at io n o f 36 C.F.R. § 26 1.3 (c) fo r hi s co nd uc t t owa rd Lip p.

At th e c l o se of tri al

, th e m ag is tra te jud ge or al ly co nv ic te d McDi ll of bo th

co un ts

, an d im

po se d fin es an d pr oc es si ng fees to ta li ng $6 50

. McDi ll ap pe al ed pr o se

to th e di st ric t co ur t, an d th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e ap pe al

. McDi ll ap pe al ed pr o se

to th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it

, an d we ap po in te d an at to rn ey , who fil ed a su pp le m en ta l br ie f.

II . Disc us si on

3 6 C

. F.R. § 26 1.3 (c) pr oh ib it s “ [t]hr eat en in g, in ti m id at in g, or in te nt io na ll y

in te rfer in g wit h an y Fo res t of fic e r , v o lu nt eer, or hu m an res ou rce pr og ram en ro ll ee

whi le en ga ge d in

, or on acco un t of

, t h e p erfo rm an ce of du ti es fo r th e pr ot ect io n,

-4

-im

pr ov em en t, or ad mi n i s tra ti on of th e Nati on al Fo res t Sy st em or ot he r du ti es

as si gn ed by th e Fo res t Serv ic e.” The two ci ta ti on s McDi ll r e c e i v e d fro m Nels on

li st ed hi s of

fen se s as “ in te nt io na ll y in te rfer in g w US FS em pl oyee in pr oc es s o f he r

du ti es ” an d “ ha ras sm en t + in te rfer en ce w/ USFS em pl oyee in pr oc es s of he r du ti es ,”

res pe ct iv el y

.

“ It is ax io m at ic th at a de fen da nt m ay no t be tri ed on ch arg es th at were no t m ad e

i n t h e in di ct m en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Nov ak

, 21 7 F.3 d 56 6, 57 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )

. A

co nst ru ct ive am en dm en t ari se s whe n th e “ es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e of fen se ” de sc ri be d

in th e ch arg in g in st ru m en t “ are al te red

, ei th er act ua ll y or in effe ct

, by th e pr os ecu to r

or th e co ur t” so th at a “ su bs ta nt ia l li ke li ho od ” ex is ts th at th e de fen da nt was co nv ic te d

of an un ch arg ed of

fen se

. Id

. at 57 4

, 57 5 (in te rn al al te rat io ns om it te d) (q uo ti ng

1

Uni te d St at es v. Em ery, 18 6 F.3 d 92 1, 92 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )). A co ns tru ct iv e

am en dm en t im

pl ic at es a de fen da nt ’s Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht to in di ct m en t by a gr an d

jury an d Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to no ti ce of th e ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m

. Uni te d St at es

v. Stu ck ey , 22 0 F.3 d 97 6, 98 1 & n.5 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). W he th er or not a co ns tru ct iv e

am en dm en t t ha t v io la te s a de fen da nt ’s rig ht to in di ct m en t by a gr an d jury wou ld be

rev ers ib le erro r pe r se , co m pa re id

. at 98 1, wit h Uni te d Stat es v. Gill

, 51 3 F.3d 83 6,

84 9– 50 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), we ha ve su gg es te d th at whe n th e rig ht to a gr an d jury is no t

at is su e, “ [a] pr ejud ic e an al y si s wou ld ha ve to be pe rfo rm ed to de te rm in e whe th er a

de fen da nt ’s

. . . du e pr oc es s or no ti ce rig ht s were m at eri al ly affe ct ed .” Id

. at 98 1 n.5 ;

se e Luc as v. O’ Dea, 17 9 F.3 d 41 2, 41 7– 18 (6 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Here, McDi ll ha d no rig ht

“ W e ha ve freq ue nt ly di sc us se d th e di ffer en ce be twee n” a co ns tr u c ti ve 1

am en dm en t an d a va ria nc e in th e ev id en ce. St uc ke y , 22 0 F.3 d at 98 0– 81

. “ The ba si c di ffer en ce be twee n a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t an d a va ria nc e is th is : a co ns tru ct iv e

am en dm en t ch an ge s th e ch arg e, whi le th e ev id en ce rem ai ns th e sa m e; a va ri a n ce

c h an ge s th e ev id en ce, whi le th e ch arg e rem ai ns th e sa m e.” Id

. Thi s cas e do e s n o t
rai se th e p os si bi li ty of a v ari an ce b ecau se th e ci ta ti on s d es cri be th e ch arg es ag ai ns t
McDi ll , and do no t s pe ci fy what pa rti cu la r co nd uc t g av e ri se to th e ch arg es

.

-5

-to a gr an d jury be cau se he was ch arg ed wit h on ly pe tt y of fen se s. See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 7( a).

Bec au se McDi ll di d no t rai se th e is su e, we ap pl y pl ai n erro r rev ie w to th e

qu es ti on of whe th er he was su bjec te d to a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t th at pr ejud ic ed hi s

Si xt h Am en dm en t n ot ic e ri gh ts . See Un it ed St at es v. Gran ad os , 16 8 F .3d 34 3, 3 46
(8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at we ha ve th e au th or it y to rai se su a sp on te an d rev ie w

fo r pl ai n erro r cri ti cal is su es affe ct in g a cri m in al de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s)

.

“ Und er pl ai n erro r rev ie w, we ha ve di sc ret io n to rev ers e if (1 ) th ere is an ‘error ’; (2 )

t h e e r r o r is ‘pla in ’; ( 3) th e erro r affe ct s th e de fen da nt ’s ‘su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s’; an d (4 )

th e erro r se rio us ly affe ct s th e ‘fairn es s, in t e g r i t y o r pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l

pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. La r a-Ru iz

, 68 1 F.3 d 91 4, 92 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )

(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Olan o, 5 07 U.S. 72 5, 7 32 –3 7 (1 99 3) ).

Here, th ere was erro r th at wa s p l a i n

. Bec au se th e ci ta ti on s ch arg ed McDi ll

wit h ha ras sm en t (wh ic h is no t pr oh ib it ed by § 26 1.3 (c)) an d in te rfer en ce, th e ve rd ic t

was pe rm is si bl e on ly if it res te d on th e th eo ry th at McDi ll in te nt io na ll y in te rfer ed

wit h Hud so n an d Lip p. Howev er, bo th th e go ve rn m en t an d th e c o u r t effe ct iv el y

al te red th e ch arg es set for th in th e ci ta ti on s.

The go ve rn m en t’s cas e fo cu se d pr im ari ly o n e s ta bl is hi ng th at McDi ll

in ti m id at ed Hud so n an d Lip p. The go ve rn m en t el ic it ed te st im on y fro m Hud so n th at

sh e fel t un co m fo rta bl e an d th reat en ed whe n sp eak in g wit h McDi ll

, an d te st im on y

fro m Lip p t ha t s he was i nt im id at ed by Mc Dil l’s s iz e an d d em ean or . In cl os in g, t he

go ve rn m en t st at ed wit h res pe ct to th e fir st ci ta ti on : “ You r Hon or , w e be li ev e th e

ev id en ce p r o v e s be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at

. . . t he Defen da nt in ti m id at ed an d

arg ua bl y in te rfer ed

, bu t we th in k c le arl y in ti m id at ed a fo res t offi cer.” W it h resp ect

to th e se co nd ci ta ti on , t h e g o ve rn m en t arg ue d: “ [Lip p] s ai d sh e was in ti m id at ed by

th e ag gr es si ve po st ur e th at th e Defen da nt as su m ed at th at ti m e. And we th in k in th e

sa m e m an ne r [h e] vio la te d t ha t s ta tu te [36 C.F.R. § 26 1.3 (c)].”

-6

-The co ur t’s co ns id erat io n of McDi ll ’s cas e al so reac he d be y on d th e ch arg es of

th e ci ta ti on s. In ha nd in g do wn th e ve rd ic t, th e co ur t to ld McDi ll : “ The is su e is

, were

yo u , fir st of al l, in ti m id at in g, in te rfer in g, or th reat en in g th em

. And

, se co nd of a l l

, were you d oi ng so be cau se th ey were Fore st Serv ic e of fic ers . And aft er h eari ng all

th e ev id en ce fro m bo th si de s, I c o me t o th e de fin it e co nc lu si on th at th e an swe r on

bo th ti ck et s is y es .” Fu rth er, t he co ur t’s ex pl an at io n o f th e ve rd ic t rel ie d in pa rt on

th e th eo ry th at McDi ll in ti m id at ed or th reat en ed Hud so n an d Lip p. Fo r ex am pl e, th e

c o u rt to ld McDi ll : “ No on e’s arg ui ng wit h th e fact th at y ou were tryin g t o g e t

an swe rs to qu es ti on s. It’s ho w y ou wen t ab ou t do in g it

. It’s th e an gr y de m ean or , th e

in si st en ce, th e le an in g in to th ei r ph y si cal sp ace. And th es e th reat s y ou th rew ab ou t,

wha t ar e y ou go in g t o d o a bo ut it if I— if I do n’t l is te n t o you .”

In li g h t o f t h e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce an d th e co ur t’s ex pl an at io n of th e

ve rd ic t, t h e r e w as at le as t a su bs ta nt ia l li ke li ho od th at McDi ll was co nv ic te d of an

of fen se for whi ch he was no t ch arg ed

. See Nov ak , 2 17 F.3 d at 57 5; se e al so Str eet

v. New Yor k, 39 4 U.S. 57 6, 58 6 (1 96 9) (ex pl ai ni ng th at a ge ne ral ve rd ic t in a be nc h

tri al mu s t b e s e t as id e if “ we can no t kn ow th at it di d no t res t on th e in va li d

co ns ti tu ti on al gr ou nd ” (q uo ti ng W il li am s v. Nor th Caro li na , 31 7 U.S. 28 7, 29 2
(1 94 2) )). Acco rd in gl y , McDi ll was su bjec te d to a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t. Fu rth er,

th is erro r was pl ai n; th e ci ta ti o n s cl earl y ch arg e McDi ll wit h ha ras sm en t an d

in te rfer en ce, n ot wit h i nt im id at io n o r th reat s.

Add it io na ll y , th e co nst

ru ct ive am en dm en t m at eri al ly an d su bs ta nt ia ll y affe ct ed

McDi ll ’s r ig ht to no ti ce of th e ch arg e s ag ai ns t hi m

. McDi ll ’s t ria l de fen se fo cu se d

pr im ari ly on th e al le ga ti on s of th e ci ta ti on : ha ras sm en t a n d i n te rfer en ce. Fo r

ex am pl e, he as ke d Hud so n whe th er sh e was on he r lu nc h br eak whe n he sp ok e wit h

he r, an d a sk ed Nels on whet he r Lip p was on du ty at th e ti m e he sp ok e wit h h er. He

al so as ke d Lip p whe th er s h e fel t he ha d m ad e an y “ se xu al ha ras sm en t ki nd of

-7

-co m

m en ts ” to ward he r. McDi ll hi m se lf t es ti fie d: “ I was alwa y s t al ki ng ab ou t wh at

I th in k th ei r job de sc rip ti on is

. . . . [T]hey bo th co ul d ha ve jus t sa id I’m no t go in g to

ta lk to y ou an d th at wou ld ha ve be en [th e] en d o f it . But th ey di d[ n’t] and so I was

no t in te rfer in g or in te rru pt in g an y wor ki ng th at th ey were do in g or it was in th ei r job

de sc rip ti on .” In sh or t, McDi ll rel ie d on th e la ng ua ge of th e ci ta ti on s in pr ep ari ng hi s

de fen se , an d was un fai rly su rp ris ed whe n th e go ve rn m en t pu rs ue d a co nv ic ti on ba se d

on th e th eo ry

th at he in ti m id at ed or t hr eat en ed Hud so n an d Lip p. The co ns tru ct iv e

am en dm en t was pa rti cu la rly pr ejud ic ia l be cau se McDi ll ha d no rig ht to ap po in te d

co un se l an d rep res en te d hi m se lf at tri al

. Bec au se th is erro r effe ct iv el y de pr iv ed

McDi ll of th e ab il it y to pr ep are an d pr es en t hi s de fen se , it un de rm in ed th e “ fai rn es s,

in te gr it y or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Lara-R ui z, 68 1 F .3d at 9 20

. Acco rd in gl y , McDi ll was su bjec te d to a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t th at am ou n t e d to
pl ai n e rro r, an d we wi ll rev ers e h is co nv ic ti on s.

Alt ho ug h we h a v e al read y de te rm in ed th at McDi ll ’s co nv ic ti on s sh ou ld be

r ev ers ed

, we m

us t al so co ns id er McDi ll ’s arg um en t th at in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

s up po rts hi s co nv ic ti on s, be cau se un li ke a rev ers al ba se d on a co ns tru ct i v e

am en dm en t, a rev ers al ba se d on in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce ba rs ret ria l. See Uni te d St at es

v. Farr

, 53 6 F.3 d 11 74

, 11 87 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 08 ). As we un de rs ta nd McDi ll ’s arg um en t,

he co nt en ds th at th e go ve rn m en t fail ed to pr ov e he in te nd ed to in ti m id at e, th reat en ,

or in te rfer e wit h Hud so n an d Lip p; an d th at no reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld pe rcei ve hi s

co nd uc t as th reat en in g, in ti m id at in g, or in te rfer in g

. W he re th ere ha s be en a

co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t, “ we co ns id er whe th er su ffi ci en t ev id en ce was in tro du ced

at tri al to su p p o r t th e ve rd ic t th e [co ur t] ren de red ,” rat he r th an a ve rd ic t on th e

or ig in al ch arg es

. Id

. And in cas es li ke th is on e whe re th e co ur t ha s is su ed a ge ne ral

v e r d i c t

, t he ve rd ic t m

us t be up he ld if an y of th e po ss ib le ba se s of co nv ic ti on i s

su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. Grif fin v. Uni te d St at es , 50 2 U.S. 4 6

, 59 –6 0
(1 99 1)

.

-8

-Here, we co nc lu de th at su ffi ci en t ev id en ce su pp or te d McDi ll ’s co nv ic ti on s on

th e gr ou nd s th at he in t i mida te d Hud so n an d Lip p. McDi ll arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erro ne ou sl y fai le d to req ui re th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e th at he ha d sp eci fic in te nt

to in ti m id at e, th reat en , or in te rfer e wit h H u ds on an d Lip p. See Elo ni s v. Uni te d

St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 20 01 (2 01 5)

. W e do no t ag ree w i t h th e di ss en t th at “ Elo ni s is

in ap po si te .” In fra, at 14

. The re is a se rio us is su e whe th er an ag en cy op erat in g un de r

a br oa d de le ga ti on of au th or it y to m ak e ru le s an d reg ul at io ns “ fo r th e pr ot ect io n [o f]

publ ic fo res ts an d na ti on al fo res ts ,” in cl ud in g ru le s pu ni sh ab le by crim ina l fi ne s w he n

vi ol at ed

, 16 U.S.C. § 55 1, may a d o p t a ru le pu ni sh in g th reat s an d in ti m id at io n

wit ho ut a men s re a el em en t th at m ay be “ n e c e ss ary to se pa rat e wro ng fu l co nd uc t

fro m ot he rwis e in no cen t co nd uc t.” Id

. at 20 10 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Bu t we ne ed no t

res ol ve th is is su e, be cau se ev en if pr oo f of sc ie nt er is req ui red fo r a co nv ic ti on un de r

each su bp art of 36 C.F.R. § 26 1.3 (c), we co nc lu de th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r

th e co ur t to co nc lu de t h a t McDi ll in te nd ed to in ti m id at e Hud so n an d Lip p. See

Park er v. Nor ris

, 64 F.3 d 1 1 7 8

, 1 18 1- 82 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (h ol di ng th at ret ria l is

pe rm it te d aft er a co nv ic ti on is rev ers ed un le ss th e rev ers al was ba se d on in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce). Bec au se McDi ll was co nv ic te d of a cri m e fo r whi ch he was no t ch arg ed

,

an d th e co nv ic ti on was su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce, we rev ers e th e jud gm en t of

th e di st ric t co ur t an d rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

. See Farr

, 53 6 F.3 d at 11 88 -8 9.

II I. Co ncl us io n

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s re ve rs ed

.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

The co ur t ta ke s th e ex tra or di na ry st ep of rev ers in g Tho m as McDi l l ’s

co nv ic ti on s ba se d on a cl ai m th at McDi ll ha s ne ve r rai se d— no t be fo re th e m ag is tra te
jud ge who tri ed hi s cas e, be fo re th e di st ric t jud ge who rev ie wed th e co nv ic ti on s in a

fir st ap p e a l

, o r b e f

or e th is co ur t on a se co nd ap pe al , e it he r in hi s op en in g br ie f, hi s

-9

-s u p p l e men t a l br ie f fil ed by co un se l, or at or al arg um en t. Ord in ari ly, whe n a

de fen da nt rai se s an is su e th at was fo rfei te d in th e tri al co ur t, th e de fen da nt be ars th e

bu rd en to sh o w an ob vi ou s erro r th at affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s an d se rio us ly

affe ct s th e fai rn e s s , i nt eg rit y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs

. Uni te d

St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 6- 37 (1 99 3)

. The m ajor it y , ha vi ng as su m ed th e ro le

of ad vo cat e fo r th e d efen se , fai ls to carry its bu rd en he re.

The m ajor it y ’s th eo ry is th at th e m ag is tra te jud ge vi ol at ed M c D il l’s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s by effe ct in g a “ co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t” of th e ch arg es ag ai ns t

hi m

. The m ag is tra te jud ge fo un d hi m g u i l t y o f th reat en in g, in ti m id at in g, or

in te rfer in g wit h Fo res t of fic ers , b ut th e m ajor it y in si st s th at McDi ll was in fo rm ed

on ly tha t h e was accu se d o f “ in te rfer in g” wit h t he off ic ers

.

The p r o b le m of “ co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t” de riv es fro m th e de ci si on s in Ex

Par te Bai n , 12 1 U.S. 1 (1 88 7)

, an d St ir on e v. Uni te d St at es , 36 1 U.S. 21 2 (1 96 0)

. In

th os e cas es , th e Co ur t e s t a b li sh ed th at “ aft er an in di ct m en t ha s be en ret ur ne d it s

ch arg es m ay no t be bro ad en ed th ro ug h am en dm en t exce pt by the gra nd jury it se lf.”

St ir on e , 36 1 U.S. at 21 5- 16

. The Fi fth Am en dm en t pr ov id e s , wit h a co up le

ex cep ti on s, th at no pe rs on sh al l be he ld to an swe r fo r an “ in fam ou s cri m e, un le ss on

a pr es en tm en t or in di ct m en t of a Gran d Ju ry .” If an in di ct m en t is br oa de ne d wit ho ut

act io n by a g ran d ju ry , t he n th e act io n wou ld pl ace “ th e rig ht s of th e ci ti zen , wh ic h

were in te nd ed to be pr ot ect ed by th e co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io n, at th e m ercy or co nt ro l

of th e co ur t or pr os ecu ti ng at to r ne y .” St ir on e , 36 1 U.S. at 21 6 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

The Fi fth Am en d men t is in ap pl ic ab le he re. McDi ll was ch arg ed wit h pe tt y

of fen se s. The tri al of a pe tt y of fen se m ay pr oc eed on a ci ta ti on or vi ol at io n no ti ce.

Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 58 (b ). McDi ll ha d no rig ht to an in di c t men t

, an d de ci si on s

co nc ern in g co ns tru ct iv e a men d men t of an in di ct m en t are no t ge rm an e. The

m ajor it y ’s effo rt to ap pl y Uni te d St at es v. No va k

, 21 7 F.3 d 56 6, 57 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ),

-1 0-wit h an al te red qu ot at io n th at om it s No va k ’s refe ren ce to th e gr an d jury, is m is le ad in g

an d u np ers ua si ve

. 2

Th e S ix th Am en dm en t’s no ti ce req ui rem en t do es ap pl y to pe tt y of fen se s, s o

McDi ll en

joy ed th e rig ht “ to be in fo rm ed of th e na tu re an d cau se of th e accu sa ti on ”

ag ai ns t hi m

. It ha s lo ng be en reco gn iz ed

, ho wev er, th at in fo rm in g an accu se d in th e

te rm s of a st at ut e, wit ho ut se tt in g fo rth an y pa rti cu la rs of th e m an n e r o r mea n s , is

ge ne ral ly s uf

fic ie nt to sa ti sf

y th is co ns t i t u t io na l pr ov is io n. Armo ur Pac ki ng Co . v

. Uni te d St at es , 20 9 U.S. 56

, 84 (1 90 8) ; Led be tt er v. Uni te d St at es , 17 0 U.S. 60 6, 61 2
(1 89 8) ; Uni te d St at es v. Goo di ng , 25 U.S. 46 0, 4 74 (18 27 ); Ta ra n v . Uni te d S ta te s , 88 F.2 d 54

, 56 -5 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 37 ). The go ve rn m en t ch arg e d M c D il l wit h pe tt y

of fen se s in two ha nd writ te n vi ol at io n no ti ces

. In th e bo x fo r “ Offen se Ch arg ed ,” bo th

no ti ces st at ed “ 36 CFR 26 1.3 (c).” Tha t pro vi si on , whi ch is read il y av ai la bl e on th e

In te rn e t

, s t a t es th at th e fo ll owi ng is pr oh ib it ed : “ Thre at en in g, in ti m id at in g, or

in te nt io na ll y in te rfer in g wit h an y Fo res t offi cer .

. . whi le en ga ge d in

, or on acco un t

of

, th e pe rfo rm an ce of du ti es fo r th e pr ot ect io n, im pr ov e ment

, or ad m in is tra ti on of

th e Nati on al Fo res t Sy st em or ot he r du ti es as si gn ed by th e Fo res t Serv ic e.” 36 C.F.R.

§ 26 1

. 3 ( c ) (2 01 3)

. McDi ll was th us in fo rm ed of th e el em en ts of th e ch arg es by

refe ren ce to th e reg ul at io n. In he r ru li ng , th e m ag is tra te jud ge fo u n d b e yo n d a

reas on ab le do ub t th at McDi ll was gu il ty of in ti m id at in g, in te rfer in g wit h, or

th reat en in g of

fic ers of th e Fo res t Serv ic e. The fin di ng m at ch ed th e of fen se ch arg ed

. McDi ll was p ro pe rly inf

or m ed of t he na tu re an d c au se of t he accu sa ti on

.

In acco rd an ce wit h Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 58 (b )(2 ), McDi ll al so

m ad e an in it ia l ap pe aran ce on th e pe tt y of fen se s, at whi ch ti m e th e m ag is tra te jud ge

No va k

, qu ot ed se le ct iv el y by th e m ajor it y , an te

, at 5, st at es th at a co ns tru ct iv e 2

am en dm en t “ oc cu rs whe n th e es se nt ia l el em en ts o f t he of fen se se t fo rt h in th e
in di ct men t are [al te red

, ei th er act ua ll y or in effe ct ,] by th e pr os ecu to r or th e co ur t af te r th e g r a nd ju ry ha s pa ss ed up on th em .” 21 7 F.3 d at 57 4 (em ph as is ad de d;

br ack et s i n o rig in al ; i nt ern al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.
-1 1-was req ui red to in fo rm hi m of th e ch arg es

. McDi ll pr od uc ed no ev id en ce to su gg es t

th at th e m ag is tra te jud ge di d no t in fo rm hi m th at he was ch arg ed

, in th e te rm s of th e

reg ul at io n, wit h th reat en in g, in ti m id at in g, or in te nt io na ll y in te rfer in g wit h an y Fo res t

of fic er. W he n th e m ag is tra te jud ge was as ke d du rin g tri al to ex pl ai n th e fo cu s of th e

pr oc eed in gs , sh e g a v e t ha t pr eci se in fo rm at io n to McDi ll : “ The fo cu s of th e

pr oc eed in gs are whe th er y ou th reat en ed

, in ti m id at ed

, or in te nt io na ll y in te rfer ed wit h

th e fo res t o f

f i c e r whi le th ey were en ga ge d in th e pe rfo rm an ce of th ei r du ti es or on

acco un t o f th e o ffi cer’s d ut ie s.”

The m ajor it y

att em pt s t o m an uf

act ur e an erro r ba se d o n a sep arat e p or ti on of

th e vi ol at io n no ti ces

. As no te d, bo th no ti ces in fo rm ed McDi l l t h at th e “ Offen se

Ch arg ed ” was 36 C.F.R. § 26 1.3 (c). The no ti ces al so each in cl ud e a bo x e n ti tl ed

“ Offen se Des cri pt io n” th at be ars an of fic er’s ha nd writ in g. On e no ti ce sa y s

“ In te nt io na ll y In te rfer in g w USFS Em pl oyee in Pro ces s of H er Dut ie s” ; th e ot he r

st at es “Hara ss m en t & In te rfer en ce w/ USFS Em pl oyee in Pro ces s of Her Dut ie s.”

Fro m th es e no ti ces , th e m ajor it y co n c l ud es su m m ari ly th at “ th e ci ta ti on s ch arg ed

McDi ll wit h ha ras sm en t (wh ic h is no t pr oh ib it ed by § 26 1.3 (c)) an d in te rfer en ce.”

Ant e , a t 6

. The m ajor it y th en ap pa ren tl y de em s it ob vi ou s th at McDi ll was no t

in fo rm ed th at he was c ha rg ed wit h “ in ti m id at in g” a Fo res t o ffi cer.

The m ajor it y ’s own an al y si s, ho wev er, be tra y s it s weak ne ss

. Tha t on e ci ta ti on

de sc rib ed th e of

fen se as “ ha ras sm en t” —a te rm no t us ed in th e regu la tio n— sh ows th at

th e “ Offen se Des c r i p ti on ” is no t a st at em en t of th e ch arg e ag ai ns t McDi ll

. The

st at em en t of th e ch arg e, fit ti ng ly, ap pe ars in th e bo x en ti tl ed “ Offen se Ch arg ed .” The

of f e n s e c ha rg ed was th reat en in g, in ti m id at in g, or in te nt io na ll y in te rfer in g wit h a

Fo res t of fic er, as se t fo rth in 36 C.F.R. § 26 1.3 (c). The “ Offen s e Des cri pt io n”

pr ov id es a br ie f st at em en t of fact s, so m et im es cal le d th e m an ne r or m ean s, by whi ch

th e ci te d pa rty co m

m it te d th e ch arg ed of

fen se

. The of

fic er’s “ Offen se Des cri pt io n”

do es no t ob vi ou sl y n a r r o w th e “ Offen se Ch arg ed ” on ei th er no ti ce. Haras sm en t or

in te rfer en ce of a cert ai n de gr ee can a mo u n t to in ti m id at io n. The m ag is tra te jud ge

-1 2-rei te rat ed du rin g tri al th at M c Dil l was ch arg ed acco rd in g to th e el em en ts of th e

reg ul a t i o n , a n d McDi ll ha s no t sh own th at he was ot he rwis e in fo rm ed at hi s in it ia l

a p p e aran ce. At a m in im um , th ere is no pl ai n an d ob vi ou s vi ol at io n of th e S i x t h

Am en dm en t.

The m ajor it y ’s arg um en t fa il s at th e n ex t st ep of pl ai n- erro r an al y si s to o. To
jus ti fy rel i e f

, M c D i l l (o r he re, th e m ajor it y ) m us t sh ow th at th ere is a reas on ab le

p r o b ab il it y th at th e al le ge d erro r affe ct ed th e ou tc om e of th e tri al

. Thi s w a s a

st rai gh tfo rward tri al of two pe tt y of fen se s. The m ag i s t rat e jud ge rem in de d McDi ll

earl y in th e tri al , du rin g t he tes ti m on y of th e se co nd of ni ne wit ne ss es , t ha t “ [w]hat

I wan t to kn ow is di d y ou th reat en , in ti m id at e, or in te nt io na ll y in te rfer e wit h a Fo res t

S e rv ic e of

fic er.” McDi ll cro ss -ex am in ed th e pr os ecu ti on wit ne ss es ab ou t hi s

i n t e r a c ti on s wit h th em an d te st ifi ed in hi s own de fen se

. He ha d am pl e op po rtu ni ty

to el ic i t ev id en ce th at he di d no t in ti m id at e th e of fic ers an d no reas on to fo reg o

pr es en ti ng an y s u c h e v i d en ce. The re is no reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at a di ffer en t

“ Offen se Des cri pt io n” on th e ci ta ti on s wou ld ha ve ch an ge d th e ou tc om e of th e tri al

.

Th e r e is y et an ot he r pr ob le m wit h th e m ajor it y ’s ap pr oa ch un de r th e fo ur t h

pr on g o f pl ai n e rro r rev ie w. The pl ai n- erro r ru le is pe rm is si ve , n ot m an da to ry , and

it sh ou ld be em

pl oyed to av oi d m is carr ia ge s of jus ti ce. Se e Ola no , 50 7 U.S. at 73 5-

36 ; Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 52 (b ). Alt ho ug h th e m ajor it y hypo th es iz es th at M c D i l l w as

“ un fai rly su rp ris ed ” whe n th e pr os ecu ti on a r gu ed th at he “ in ti m id at ed ” th e Fo res t

of fic ers , McDi ll ha s nev er on ce m ad e th at cla im . If McDi ll do es no t re al iz e th at he

was su rp ris ed

, t h e n l e av in g hi s co nv ic ti on s in pl ace wou ld no t se rio us ly affe ct th e

fai rn es s, in te gr it y , o r p u bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs

. To th e co nt rary, as

we sa id in Uni te d St at es v. Ken t

, 53 1 F.3 d 64 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), to va cat e a co nv ic ti on

un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces “ wou ld bl ur th e li ne be twee n an ad ve r s ari al an d

in qu is it or ia l syste m of jus ti ce,” an d “ wou ld ad ve rs el y affe ct th e in te gr it y an d pu bl ic

rep ut at io n of th e pr oc eed in gs .” Id

. at 65 6- 57 (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. The re is

no pl ai n e rro r warra nt in g d is cret io na ry rel ie f.

-1 3-McDi ll do es rai se a di ffer en t cl ai m on ap pe al

, bu t it la ck s m eri t. McDi ll arg ue s

th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e co nv ic ti on s fo r in ti m id at in g Fo res t

of fic ers be cau se he di d no t in te nd to in ti m id at e th em

. Ci ti ng Elo ni s v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 20 01 (2 01 5)

, McDi ll co nt en ds th at th e co ur t sh ou ld read in to 36 C.F.R.

§ 26 1.3 (c) a men s re a req ui rem en t th at an of f en de r m us t in te nd to th reat en , in ti m id at e, or in te rfer e wit h a Fo res t o ffi cer.

Elo ni s is in ap po si te

. Tha t de ci si on co nc er n s h o w to in te rp ret a te xt th at is

si le nt on th e m en ta l st at e req ui red fo r a cri m in al of fen se : “ W he n in te rp ret in g fed eral

cri m in al st at ut es th at are si le nt on th e req ui red m en ta l st at e, we read in to th e st at ut e

on ly th at men s rea whi ch is ne ces sa ry to se pa rat e wro ng fu l co nd uc t fro m ot he rwis e

i n n o cen t co nd uc t.” Elo ni s , 13 5 S. Ct

. at 20 10 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d )

. Th e

r e g u l a t io ns at is su e he re are no t si le nt on th e req ui red m en ta l st at e. The Fo res t

Serv ic e reg ul at io ns are ex pl ic it th at “ [u ]nle ss an of fen se se t ou t in th is pa rt sp eci fie s

th at i n t e n t is req ui red

, in te nt is no t an el emen t of an y of fe ns e un de r th is pa rt .” 36

C.F.R. § 26 1.1 (c) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. Sect io n 26 1.3 (c) do es no t sp eci fy th at in te nt to

in ti m id at e is req ui red

, so in te nt is no t an el e men t of McDi ll ’s of fen se s. Und er § 26 1.3 (c), in ti m id at io n is de te rm in ed by an ob jecti ve st an da rd

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Hof f

, 22 F.3 d 22 2, 22 3 ( 9 t h Ci r. 19 94 ) (p er cu ria m ). W e ha ve ex pl ai ne d in

co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r of fen se th at “ in ti m id at io n” is co nd uc t reas on ab ly cal cu la te d

to pu t an ot he r in fear

, as m eas ur ed by an or di na ry , reas on ab le pe rs on s t a nd ard

. Uni te d S ta te s v. Y

oc kel , 32 0 F .3d 81 8, 8 24 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

The m ajor it y as se rts

, an te

, at 9, th at Elo ni s is no t in ap po si te

, be cau se “ th ere is

a se rio us is su e” wh et he r th e Fo res t Serv ic e was pe rm it te d to ad op t a r ul e p un is hi ng

th reat s an d in ti m id at io n wit ho ut a men s re a el em en t. It be ars rep eat in g, ho wev er, th at

th e op in io n in Elo ni s , in cl ud in g th e ve ry se nt en ce qu ot ed by th e m ajor it y , ad dr es se s

on ly te xt s th at are “ si le nt on th e req ui red m en ta l st at e.” 13 5 S. Ct

. at 20 10 (em ph as is

ad de d)

. Elo ni s s ay s no th in g ab ou t co ur ts im po si ng a men s re a req ui rem en t th at

la wm ak ers ex pr es sl y de cl in ed to in cl ud e. The Co ur t els ewh ere has es ta bl is he d th at

-1 4-la wm ak ers ne ed no t m ak e sc ie nt er an el em en t of ev ery of fen se

. La mbe r t v.

Ca li fo rn ia

, 35 5 U.S. 22 5, 22 8 (1 95 7) (“ W e do no t go wit h Bl ack st on e in sa y in g th at

‘a v ic io us wil l’ i s ne ces sa ry to co ns t it ut e a cri m e, fo r co nd uc t al on e wit ho ut reg ard

to th e in te nt of th e do er is of te n s uf fic ie nt . There is wid e la ti tu de in th e la wm ak ers

to de cl are an of

fen se an d to ex cl ud e el em en ts of k n o w l e d g e a nd di li ge nc e fro m it s

de fin it io n.” ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; W il li ams v. No rt h Ca ro li na , 32 5 U.S. 22 6, 23 8 (1 94 5)

(“ The ob jecti on th at pu ni sh m en t of a pe r s o n f o r an act as a cri m e whe n ig no ran t of

th e fact s m ak in g it so , in vo lv es a de ni al of du e p r o ces s of la w ha s m or e th an on ce

be en ov erru le d.” ); Uni te d St at es v. Bal in t

, 25 8 U.S. 25 0, 25 1- 52 (1 92 2) (“ W hi le th e

ge ne ral ru le at co m

m on la w was th at th e sc ie nt er was a ne ces sa ry el em en t in th e

in di ct m en t an d pr oo f of

ev ery cri m e, . . . the re h as be en a m od ifi cat io n of th is vi ew

in res pe ct to pr os ecu ti on s un de r st at ut es th e pu rp os e of whi ch wou ld be ob s t r u c t e d

by su ch a req ui rem en t. It is a qu es ti on of le g is la ti ve in te nt to be co ns tru ed by th e

co ur t.”) ; Sh evl in -Ca rp en te r Co

. v. Min ne so ta

, 21 8 U.S. 57

, 70 (1 91 0) (“ [P]ub li c

po li cy m ay req ui re tha t in th e pr oh ib it io n or pu ni sh m en t of pa rti cu la r act s it m ay be

pr ov id ed th at he who sh al l d o t he m sh al l d o t he m

at h is pe ril , and wil l n ot be he ard

to pl ead in de fen se go od fai th or i gn or an ce.”) . And McDi ll ha s n ev er d is pu te d th at

th e F o r e s t Serv ic e pe rm is si bl y pr om ul ga te d § 26 1.3 (c) ba se d on a de le ga ti on of

au th or it y un de r 1 6 U.S.C. § 55 1. Se e ge ne ra ll y Lo vi ng v. Uni te d St at es , 51 7 U.S.

74 8, 76 8 (1 99 6) ; Uni te d St at es v. Gri mau d

, 22 0 U.S. 50 6, 51 8 (1 91 1) ; Uni te d St at es

v. Bro wn , 36 4 F .3d 12 66 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).

In so far as McDi ll arg ue s on ap pe al th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at he

in ti m id at ed th e Fo res t Serv ic e of fic ers un de r an ob

jecti ve st an da rd

, th e di st ric t co ur t

co rrec tl y reject ed th e co nt en ti on

. The re was am pl e ev i d e n c e i n th e te st im on y of

Fo res t of fic ers Hud so n an d Lip p to su pp or t th e mag i s t r a te jud ge ’s fin di ng th at

McDi l l ’s c o n d u c t was ob jecti ve ly in ti m id at in g. As th e di st ric t co ur t pu t it

, th e

ev id en c e su pp or te d a reas on ab le fin di ng th at “ McDi ll ’s co nd uc t wen t be y on d

-1 5-fru st rat io n an d cri ti ci sm of th e Fo res t Serv ic e Pers on ne l in to th e real m of cri m in al

co nd uc t ex pr es sl y pr oh ib it ed by § 26 1.3 (c).” I wou ld th eref or e affi rm th e jud gm en t. 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

McDi ll arg ue s fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al th at § 26 1.3 (c) is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly 3

va gu e an d overbr oa d. The Nin th Ci rcu it ha s reject ed an an al og ou s co nt en ti on , Uni te d

St at es v. Mur

ph y-El li s , 47 F. A p p ’x 48 8, 48 9 (9 th Ci r. 20 02 ), an d th e m ag is tra te jud ge di d n ot pl ai nl y

err b y de cl in in g t o d ecl are t he reg ul at io n u nc on st it ut io na l su a

sp on te

.
-1 6-