IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-41135
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARTHUR MARCUS BOYD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas
(USDC No. 4:05-CR-00077)
________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arthur Marcus Boyd (“Boyd”) appeals his conviction and sentence for mailing
threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(d). We affirm for the
following reasons:
1. Boyd contends that the letters at issue were copies, and thus were erroneously
admitted at trial. According to the government and the victims, the letters were the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
originals received by the victims. Boyd himself had apparently copied the letters before
mailing them. Because the district court properly determined that the letters admitted into
evidence were the originals, Boyd’s argument fails.
2. Boyd also argues that the district court erred in limiting cross-examination of
the government’s witnesses and excluding evidence concerning the estate of Boyd’s
father. Because the handling of Boyd’s father’s estate was irrelevant as to whether Boyd
had mailed threatening letters, this argument also fails. See FED. R. EVID. 401.
3. Boyd contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his
conviction. We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction by
determining “whether, viewing the evidence presented and the inferences reasonably
drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact
properly could have found each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United
States v. Robles-Pantoja, 887 F.2d 1250, 1254 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation
omitted).
Boyd was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 876(d), which provides that:
Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value,
knowing so deposits or causes to be delivered . . . any communication, with or
without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other
person and containing any threat to injure the . . . reputation of the addressee or of
another. . .
has violated the law. In this case, first, federal agents testified that Boyd admitted to
them that the writing in the letters was his and that he mailed the letters, and the letters
2
contained his printed signature; and second, the letter writer threatened to spread fliers
throughout the town saying that the victims were, for example, “liars and thieves” unless
the victims gave him money, and the letters contained examples of such fliers. Thus,
Boyd’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. Boyd argues that his
prosecution violates the First Amendment. However, Boyd is not being prosecuted for
displaying the signs or distributing the fliers, but for attempting to extort money from
others. The First Amendment does not protect extortion.
4. Finally, Boyd challenges the district court’s enhancement of his sentence under
U.S.S.G. §3A1.2(a). That provision provides for a three level enhancement if the victim
was a government officer or employer and the offense was motivated by that status.
Boyd argues that his crime was motivated not by Judge Nall’s status as a judge,
but because Boyd believed that Judge Nall mishandled his father’s estate. The district
court found that Boyd’s extortion attempts were in part motivated by Nall’s status as a
judge, and thus enhanced Boyd’s sentence.
We review the district court’s sentence for reasonableness. United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005). Boyd addressed several of his letters to
“Judge Rim Nall.” Many of the fliers that Boyd sent to the victims referred mainly to
Nall, including phrases like “Crooked Judge Rim Nall Bribes;” “Watch As Christian
Judge Transforms Himself Into A Snake Before Your Very Eyes;” and “[o]ne of these
crooks is Rim Nall and he’s sitting as a judge sending people the [sic] prison for stealing
3
less than he has. Sherman should know.” He also included pictures of a truck pulling a
flatbed trailer with a large sign labeled “Crooked Judge Rim Nall Bribes.” Although
Boyd was undoubtedly motivated in part by what he saw as Nall’s wrongful handling of
his father’s estate, because of Boyd’s constant reiteration of the fact that Nall was a
judge, and his attempts to extort money from Nall based on the fact that Nall was a judge,
it is reasonable to infer that Boyd was also motivated by Nall’s status as a judge in the
community. Therefore, the district court did not err by enhancing Nall’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4