Gothard

MEMORANDUM ***

Lajos Gothard appeals his conviction by a jury for threatening United States Magistrate Lonny Suko in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115 (a)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . This Court examines the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction “in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” determining whether “any trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them except as necessary.

Gothard first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of “threat.” A statement is a “threat” if a “reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault.” Id. at 1265-66 . The only intent requirement is that the speaker knowingly communicates his threat; he need not have the ability or intent to carry out the threat. Id. at 1266 n. 3. Here, the jury reasonably could have interpreted Gothard’s letter to Judge Suko,…