Case Law United States v. C.S.

United States v. C.S.

Document Cited Authorities (34) Cited in (15) Related

Kim D. Daniel [ARGUED] Office of United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania 228 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 11754 220 Federal Building and Courthouse Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counsel for Appellee

Quin M. Sorenson [ARGUED] Office of Federal Public Defender 100 Chestnut Street Suite 306 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Appellant

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

C.S., a seventeen-year old, was adjudicated delinquent as a result of threats he made in an Internet chatroom dedicated to discussing terroristic attacks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). During several conversations, C.S. made threats against a local church. Although juvenile proceedings are usually sealed, the District Court permitted the Government to notify the church that it was the subject of a threat and that the party who communicated the threat had been prosecuted. The order did not identify C.S.

C.S. appeals the judgment and the notification order, arguing that the District Court: (1) erred in finding that his statements qualified as threats under § 875(c), and (2) violated the confidentiality provisions of the Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 ("JDA"), Pub. L. No. 93-415, 88 Stat. 1109 (codified as amended in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031 - 5038 ), in allowing the Government to notify the church of the threats. Because the evidence proved that C.S. made threats that violated § 875(c) and the District Court acted well within its discretion in issuing the notification order, we will affirm.

I
A

C.S. participated in online group chats. One of those chats was dedicated to discussing the Islamic State. The Islamic State is a terrorist organization, often referred to as "ISIS," an acronym for the "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria." App. 135.

In the chatroom, C.S. used a screenname that evoked allegiance to Islamic fundamentalist guerrillas, and he shared a photo of himself wearing a headscarf and a headband of another terrorist organization, Hamas. He had conversations with, among others, "Zubair," who lived outside Pennsylvania. App. 137. C.S. and Zubair discussed obtaining ISIS weaponry and conducting ISIS-inspired attacks. One of their conversations proceeded as follows:

Zubair: are you planning an attack in the future Zubair: or willing to
C.S.: I'll be willing to I don't have any plans
Zubair: I need help for one I'm planning
C.S.: Ah
C.S.: Ok
...
C.S.: Anyways
I'm going to bed soon
So can we discuss the help
Zubair: DC1
C.S.: hmm
Zubair: u calling cops now Lol
C.S.: No
C.S.: I don't have a reason to

App. 627-30.

Later, after exchanging pictures of themselves in Islamic fighter garb, Zubair sent a photo of the Washington Monument. App. 633. The conversation continued:

C.S.: Washington
Zubair: yes
...
Zubair: would that not be amazing
...
C.S.: It would be
...
C.S.: Ok going to try to reflect on how ISIS did on
Paris
They did damage yes
But there were a lot
Washington definitely has more security and agencies that have military grade weapons that will respond quick
I'll recommend maybe a group of 6
With bomb or weapon
Maybe both
...
C.S.: Yes the Washington memorial sounds like a great target
...
Zubair: Is [the White House] to far away to shoot at [from the top of the Washington Monument]?
C.S.: Mmm
Perhaps not
If the bullet isn't too heavy it should
Be shootable

App. 634-42.

The two then discussed the appropriate weapons and their experience with them. The conversation thereafter turned to a discussion of churches in their respective areas:

Zubair: disgusting they brainwash children C.S.: It's very big
And tomorrow there will [be] a bunch of Christians
Yes
The Church has a daycare center too
They are blind

App. 649-50.

The conversation continued about various targets:

C.S.: I brought a gun to [school] but I [didn't] pull it out
Zubair: yea
good because we can do bigger things
C.S.: yes
...
Or Wait for a riot in Harrisburg
...
Or if Christians trigger me then I go at the church
...
Too bad the Military and agencies deploy and are plentiful in DC Deploy quickly
Zubair: we can go inside [the Washington Monument]
C.S.: Yea
And snipe from the top
...
Zubair: we should meet sometime
the few mujahideen here should stick together
C.S.: Yes
May allah guide us
...
Zubair: would you help me attack america under the
caliphate flag
C.S.: Yes
...
Zubair: we should meet somewhere near DC and plan
it
C.S.: Yes
We should recruit very many
...
Zubair: we will kill many crusaders
C.S.: I hope
...
C.S.: I'm going to a arts and craft store and I'll try to buy pipes, latches and model rocket engines

App. 655-71.

The next day, the two returned to their discussion about targeting Christians and a church:

Zubair: I'm thinking of throwing [a Molotov cocktail] on someone's house
C.S.: That's what I want to do
Zubair: a catholic family or lutheran
C.S.: The church [is nearby].
...
I'll try not to get caught
Maybe I can sabotage their vans

App. 697-99.

In addition to the conversations with Zubair, C.S. made statements in the chatroom to a confidential informant that echoed his statements to Zubair. When asked in the group chat if he lived close to Washington, C.S. replied that he lived close to Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Harrisburg and that "there is a big ass church" near him. App. 511. The confidential informant asked C.S. if he would attack soon and what he wanted to target. C.S. replied that he was "still preparing and gathering equipment" and "I haven't decided since I'm of similar distance from DC, NYC, and Philadelphia. And slightly further Pittsburg [sic] .... And there is a church [is nearby] .... I need to choose carefully." App. 383-85.

Law enforcement thereafter searched C.S.’s home and cell phone. In his home, agents discovered assault rifles, ammunition, a crossbow, a headscarf, smoke bombs, grenade casings, military-style ammunition vest and gear, and a longbladed knife. His cell phone revealed Internet searches, literature about making explosives, Islamic Jihadi propaganda videos depicting beheadings, and photos of C.S. posing with his assault rifle while wearing military gear and head scarf.

B

The Government charged C.S. with making interstate threats in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) and filed a certification to proceed under the JDA because C.S. was under eighteen years old.2 The District Court held a delinquency hearing, where the Government presented the chatroom transcripts, the results of the searches, and C.S.’s post-arrest statements to law enforcement. For his part, C.S. testified that he made the statements to impress others in the chatrooms, to make friends, and to have others believe that he was serious about his statements, but that he never intended to carry out the attacks.

The District Court found C.S. delinquent. The Court held that, despite C.S.’s testimony about his underlying motivations, C.S. intended that his statements be taken as meaningful threats, so they qualified as threats under § 875(c). The Court also found that C.S. possessed equipment and materials that showed that he intended his statements to be taken seriously. After the hearing, the Court released C.S. to the custody of his mother and placed him on house arrest pending final disposition.

After the adjudication, the Government moved under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, to notify the church and the local police department of his threats and placement on house arrest. The Court held that the local police were not "crime victims" under the CVRA, but that the church was a "crime victim." App. 11. The Court, relying on our precedent in United States v. A.D., 28 F.3d 1353 (3d Cir. 1994), then observed that while the JDA provides that juvenile proceedings are generally confidential, it had the discretion to issue an order permitting the Government to notify the leader of the church that:

a. a threat was made against the Church by a juvenile, who was arrested;
b. the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for communicating interstate threats against the Church;
c. the juvenile is currently under G.P.S. surveillance on house arrest; and
d. the juvenile's dispositional hearing will take place on a date yet to be determined.

App. 13-14. C.S. appealed that notification order, and, at his request, the Court stayed the notification pending appeal. The Court thereafter sentenced C.S. to time served and juvenile delinquent supervision until his twenty-first birthday. C.S. appealed the final disposition, and we consolidated the appeals.

II3

We have two tasks in this case: first, to examine the sufficiency of the evidence and, second, to evaluate whether the District Court had the discretion to lift the confidentiality that shields juvenile proceedings by permitting notification to the victim of the threats.

We consider "a sufficiency challenge de novo," and "review the record ‘in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt[ ] beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " United States v. Hendrickson, 949 F.3d 95, 97 n.2 (3d Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 430 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc)). In reviewing a conviction or adjudication for violating § 875, we are mindful that "[w]hether a speaker's language constitutes a threat is a matter to be decided by the trier of fact," and the factfinder's decision is "entitled to great deference by this [C]ourt." United States v. Kosma, 951 F.2d 549, 555 (3d Cir. 1991).4

We review the District Court's notification order for abuse of discretion. United States v. Under Seal, 853 F.3d 706, 725 (4th Cir. 2017) (reviewing order disclosing juvenile records under the JDA for abuse of discretion); In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., LLC, 409 F.3d 555, 563 (2d Cir. 2005) (examining "a district court's determination under the CVRA ... for abuse of discretion"); A.D., ...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2021
United States v. Miah
"...the Indictment provides sufficient context such that a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant's tweets were true threats. See CS , 968 F.3d at 245 (determining that "the context and circumstances" in which the defendant made statements about violence and terrorist attacks could allow..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2021
Tyler v. Allegheny Cnty.
"...of the FCVRA, which "guarantees to the victims of federal crimes an array of substantive and participatory rights," United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 248-49 (3d Cir. 2020). This includes notice of and participation in court proceedings, the right to confer with government counsel and the..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit – 2020
United States v. Seabrook
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2021
United States v. Sabagh
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2021
United States v. Kaetz
"...in and the presence of firearms in his home—suggest a reasonable person would view the email as a threat. See United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2020) ("[A] reasonable person could perceive [Defendant's] statements about violence and terrorist attacks asserious because he had..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 58-3, July 2021 – 2021
COMPUTER CRIMES
"...Against Modern Voter Intimidation, 39 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 173, 209 N.234 (2015); see also, e.g., United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2020) (applying the objective test); United States v. Clemens, 738 F.3d 1, 10–12 (1st Cir. 2013); United States v. Turner, 720 F.3d 411..."
Document | Núm. 60-3, July 2023 – 2023
Computer Crimes
"...Cir. 2005); Porter v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd, 393 F.3d 608, 616 (5th Cir. 2004) (recognizing the objective test); United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2020) (applying both the objective test and subjective test). 144. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). 145. See, e.g..."
Document | Núm. 59-3, July 2022 – 2022
Computer Crimes
"...Against Modern Voter Intimidation , 39 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 173, 209 n.234 (2015); see also, e.g ., United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2020) (applying both the objective test and subjective test); United States v. Clemens, 738 F.3d 1, 10–12 (1st Cir. 2013) (applying t..."
Document | Núm. 61-2, April 2024 – 2024
Defining "victim" through harm: crime victim status in the crime victims' rights act and other victims' rights enactments
"...(M.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2022) (applying CVRA to protect a confidential informant’s “privacy” interest). 133. See, e.g., United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2020) (recognizing a church as a “victim” of the crime of making terroristic threats, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), when thre..."
Document | Núm. 62-3, July 2025 – 2025
Computer Crimes
"...2011); State v. Krijger, 97 A.3d 946, 957–59 (Conn. 2014); State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 515 (R.I. 2004). 125. United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2020). 454 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62:441 In Elonis v. United States, the Supreme Court declined to resolve the cir..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 58-3, July 2021 – 2021
COMPUTER CRIMES
"...Against Modern Voter Intimidation, 39 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 173, 209 N.234 (2015); see also, e.g., United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2020) (applying the objective test); United States v. Clemens, 738 F.3d 1, 10–12 (1st Cir. 2013); United States v. Turner, 720 F.3d 411..."
Document | Núm. 60-3, July 2023 – 2023
Computer Crimes
"...Cir. 2005); Porter v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd, 393 F.3d 608, 616 (5th Cir. 2004) (recognizing the objective test); United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2020) (applying both the objective test and subjective test). 144. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). 145. See, e.g..."
Document | Núm. 59-3, July 2022 – 2022
Computer Crimes
"...Against Modern Voter Intimidation , 39 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 173, 209 n.234 (2015); see also, e.g ., United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2020) (applying both the objective test and subjective test); United States v. Clemens, 738 F.3d 1, 10–12 (1st Cir. 2013) (applying t..."
Document | Núm. 61-2, April 2024 – 2024
Defining "victim" through harm: crime victim status in the crime victims' rights act and other victims' rights enactments
"...(M.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2022) (applying CVRA to protect a confidential informant’s “privacy” interest). 133. See, e.g., United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2020) (recognizing a church as a “victim” of the crime of making terroristic threats, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), when thre..."
Document | Núm. 62-3, July 2025 – 2025
Computer Crimes
"...2011); State v. Krijger, 97 A.3d 946, 957–59 (Conn. 2014); State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 515 (R.I. 2004). 125. United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2020). 454 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62:441 In Elonis v. United States, the Supreme Court declined to resolve the cir..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2021
United States v. Miah
"...the Indictment provides sufficient context such that a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant's tweets were true threats. See CS , 968 F.3d at 245 (determining that "the context and circumstances" in which the defendant made statements about violence and terrorist attacks could allow..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2021
Tyler v. Allegheny Cnty.
"...of the FCVRA, which "guarantees to the victims of federal crimes an array of substantive and participatory rights," United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 248-49 (3d Cir. 2020). This includes notice of and participation in court proceedings, the right to confer with government counsel and the..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit – 2020
United States v. Seabrook
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2021
United States v. Sabagh
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2021
United States v. Kaetz
"...in and the presence of firearms in his home—suggest a reasonable person would view the email as a threat. See United States v. C.S., 968 F.3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2020) ("[A] reasonable person could perceive [Defendant's] statements about violence and terrorist attacks asserious because he had..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex