United States v. Clifton Lamar Dodd , 579 F. App'x 897 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •              Case: 13-15824    Date Filed: 09/12/2014   Page: 1 of 5
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 13-15824
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-00154-SLB-JEO-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    CLIFTON LAMAR DODD,
    a.k.a. Cliff Dodd,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Alabama
    ________________________
    (September 12, 2014)
    Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Clifton Dodd appeals his convictions for one count of conveying false
    information and perpetuating a hoax, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1038
    (a)(1)(A),
    three counts of mailing threatening communications with the intent to extort, in
    Case: 13-15824     Date Filed: 09/12/2014   Page: 2 of 5
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 876
    (b), and three counts of mailing threatening
    communications, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 876
    (c). On appeal, Dodd argues that
    the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support his convictions because
    he did not author the letters in question, the government did not present any
    evidence as to his violent propensity, and the intended recipients never received the
    communications. After careful review, we affirm.
    We generally review de novo whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain
    a conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government
    and resolving all factual inferences in favor of the verdict. United States v.
    Jiminez, 
    564 F.3d 1280
    , 1284 (11th Cir. 2009). Arguments raised for the first time
    on appeal, however, are reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Hunerlach,
    
    197 F.3d 1059
    , 1068-69 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that plain-error review applies
    even when a defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on sufficiency of the
    evidence grounds but failed to articulate at that time the specific sufficiency of the
    evidence claim later raised on appeal). To show plain error, the defendant must
    show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights.
    United States v. Turner, 
    474 F.3d 1265
    , 1276 (11th Cir. 2007). If the defendant
    satisfies the three conditions, we may exercise our discretion to recognize the error
    if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
    proceedings.” 
    Id.
     Before an error is subject to reversal under the plain-error rule,
    2
    Case: 13-15824      Date Filed: 09/12/2014   Page: 3 of 5
    it must be plain under controlling precedent or the unequivocally clear words of a
    statute or rule. United States v. Lett, 
    483 F.3d 782
    , 790 (11th Cir. 2007).
    Sending an anthrax hoax letter is a violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1038
    (a)(1),
    which provides, in relevant part, that:
    Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading
    information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be
    believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is
    taking, or will take place that would constitute a violation of [various U.S.
    Code sections, including those criminalizing the use of biological, chemical,
    or nuclear weapons,] shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not more than 5 years,
    or both [if death or serious bodily injury does not result].
    See United States v. Evans, 
    478 F.3d 1332
    , 1344 & n.14 (11th Cir. 2007). Mailing
    threatening communications, in turn, is a violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 876
    (b):
    Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of
    value, so deposits, or causes to be delivered, as aforesaid, any
    communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to
    injure the person of the addressee or of another, shall be fined under this title
    or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
    Section 876(c) further provides, in relevant part, that:
    Whoever knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered as aforesaid, any
    communication with or without a name or designating mark subscribed
    thereto, addressed to any other person and containing any threat to kidnap
    any person or any threat to injure the person of the addressee or of another,
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
    For a conviction under § 876(b) or (c), the government must prove only that the
    communication contain a threat, not that the defendant had a violent propensity.
    See 
    18 U.S.C. § 876
    (b), (c). Neither section requires that the intended recipient
    3
    Case: 13-15824     Date Filed: 09/12/2014   Page: 4 of 5
    actually receive the communication or that the defendant authored the
    communications. See 
    id.
     The government only needs to prove that the defendant
    deposited the communications in the mail or caused them to be delivered, not that
    the intended recipients received them. 
    Id.
    A defendant’s own testimony, if disbelieved by the jury, may be considered
    as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Jiminez, 
    564 F.3d at 1285
    . Also,
    a jury is free to choose among alternative, reasonable interpretations of the
    evidence. United States v. Tampas, 
    493 F.3d 1291
    , 1298 (11th Cir. 2007).
    Here, because Dodd’s renewed motion for judgment of acquittal did not
    make the arguments he presents on appeal, we review for plain error, and Dodd is
    unable to show any error, much less error that was “plain.” As for Count 1, the
    evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that Dodd engaged in conduct with intent
    to convey false or misleading information under circumstances that may
    reasonably be believed and that indicate that he violated a statute criminalizing the
    use of biological weapons. As for Counts 2 through 7, the evidence was sufficient
    for a jury to find that Dodd deposited threatening communications in the mail,
    some with the intent to extort, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 876
    (b) and (c).
    Among other things, the evidence at trial showed that a letter containing
    white powder was sent to the Criminal Justice Building in Birmingham. Haley
    Elliott, a forensic analyst, testified that the letter containing the white powder as
    4
    Case: 13-15824     Date Filed: 09/12/2014   Page: 5 of 5
    well as the letters and the card in the manila envelope at issue in Counts 2 through
    6 were written by the same person. Elliott also testified that there were indications
    that the letter to former state legislator and judge Jim Preuitt (at issue in Count 7)
    was written by the same person. The government further introduced forensic
    testimony from Craig Hellmann that Dodd’s fingerprints were found on the four
    letters at issue in Counts 2 through 5, the three envelopes at issue in Counts 2, 4,
    and 5, and the manila envelope at issue in Counts 2 through 6. Additionally, two
    witnesses, Shannon Williams and Brian Lindsey, testified that Dodd admitted to
    writing some of the letters. Moreover, Dodd testified and specifically denied
    writing all of the letters. The jury was free to disbelieve Dodd’s testimony and
    find that he sent the anthrax hoax letter, wrote the threatening communications,
    and deposited them in the mail. Accordingly, we affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    5