U.S. v. Haas

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s challenge to his indictment that alleged three separate counts of threatening federal official under 18 USC section 115(a)(1)(B), even though defendant argued that instant indictment violated Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(ii) against generating multiplicitous indictments, where instant indictment asserted three counts alleging separate threats, and where defendant asserted that only one overriding threat had been allegedly uttered. Instant indictment was permissible, where operative prosecution unit allowed each threat to be individually indicted. Moreover, indictment conveyed three separate threats, which did not depend on additional information contained in any other count. Fact that two of three counts contained alleged threats that occurred only 27 minutes apart did not require different result. Also, record contained sufficient evidence under plain error standard to support interstate element for each count, where record showed that defendant sent such threats over Internet that involved defendant sending his posts to website in Russia, and where individuals in California had seen defendant’s original posts.