Mailing Threatening Communications – 18 U.S.C. § 876 Sentencing Guidelines

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group, a second-generation firm managed by Todd Spodek with over 40 years of combined experience. When federal prosecutors charge mailing threatening communications under 18 U.S.C. § 876, they’re alleging you used the U.S. mail to send threats to injure recipients or their property, to kidnap, or to demand ransom or money. Maximum sentence: **5 years** for threats to injure or kidnap; **20 years** for ransom demands. The statute predates the internet, reflecting an era when physical mail was the primary communication method for threats. While § 875 addresses interstate electronic communications, § 876 remains relevant for old-fashioned threatening letters, packages containing threats, or mail-based extortion schemes.

What § 876 Criminalizes

The statute creates multiple offense pathways:

§ 876(a): Threats to Kidnap

Mailing threats to kidnap any person. Maximum: **5 years**. This covers ransom kidnapping threats sent via mail—”We have your child and demand payment” letters, extortion schemes threatening to abduct family members unless payments are made.

§ 876(b): Threats to Injure Reputation

Mailing threats to accuse recipients of crimes, injure their reputation or property, or otherwise harm them unless recipients pay money or deliver something of value. Maximum: **5 years**. Classic blackmail by mail—”Pay us or we’ll reveal embarrassing information,” “Send money or we’ll destroy your property,” “Deliver the drugs or we’ll report you to police.”

§ 876(c): Threats to Injure Person or Property

Mailing communications threatening to injure recipients, other persons, or property. Maximum: **5 years**. This covers non-extortion threats—hate mail, revenge threats, letters threatening violence without demanding payment.

§ 876(d): Ransom Demands

Mailing ransom demands for kidnapping victims. Maximum: **20 years**. When kidnappings have actually occurred and kidnappers mail ransom demands, this provision applies with significantly enhanced penalties recognizing the serious ongoing crime.

The “Mailing” Element

Section 876 requires use of U.S. mail or private commercial carriers:

• **U.S. Postal Service** – Letters, packages, certified mail sent through USPS
• **Private carriers** – FedEx, UPS, DHL, or other commercial delivery services
• **Causing to be mailed** – Defendants who give threatening communications to others for mailing, or who indirectly cause mailings, violate § 876 even if they didn’t personally deposit items in mailboxes

The mailing element distinguishes § 876 from § 875 (interstate electronic communications). If threats were emailed, texted, or posted online, § 875 applies. If threats were physically mailed, § 876 applies. Some threats involve both—letters followed by emails, or packages accompanied by online messages—resulting in charges under both statutes.

Defense challenges whether defendants actually caused mailings. If someone else mailed threats without defendants’ knowledge or authorization, if mail was intercepted before delivery, or if postal workers discovered threatening materials and prevented delivery, causation issues arise. Prosecutors must prove defendants intended communications reach recipients via mail.

Federal Sentencing: Offense Level 12-18

Under §2A6.1 (threats) and §2B3.2 (extortion), mailing threatening communications receives base offense levels depending on conduct:

• **Level 12** for threats without extortion or kidnapping (10-16 months at Category I)
• **Level 18** for extortionate threats demanding payment (27-33 months at Category I)
• **Higher levels** when actual kidnapping occurred, with cross-references to kidnapping guidelines

Enhancements apply for:

• **+6 levels** if threats involved conduct evidencing intent to carry out the threat
• **+2 levels** if multiple threatening communications were sent
• **+4 levels** if extortion was sophisticated or involved multiple victims

Most § 876 prosecutions involve single threatening letters without action toward execution. These result in offense level 12 (probation or under one year with acceptance). Extortion schemes demanding payment jump to level 18 (2-3 years). When defendants took steps toward executing threats—attempting kidnappings, conducting surveillance, acquiring weapons—levels increase substantially.

Comparing § 876 to § 875

Section 875 (interstate electronic communications) carries identical maximums and similar elements to § 876, but applies to modern communication methods. The practical difference: § 875 prosecutions vastly outnumber § 876 cases because most threats are now electronic. Only old-fashioned threatening letters or those specifically choosing mail to avoid electronic surveillance trigger § 876.

The True Threat Requirement

Like all threat statutes, § 876 criminalizes only “true threats” under First Amendment law. Prosecutors must prove:

• **Defendant knowingly mailed threatening communications** – Accidental mailings don’t count; defendants must have intended to send the materials
• **Communications conveyed threats** – Recipients would reasonably perceive statements as threatening harm, kidnapping, or property damage
• **Subjective awareness** – Under recent Supreme Court precedent, defendants must have known or consciously disregarded risk that recipients would perceive communications as threats

Defense challenges whether mailed communications actually constituted threats or were protected speech: political commentary, artistic expression, exaggerated venting, or ambiguous statements susceptible to non-threatening interpretations. Context matters—anonymous letters are more threatening than signed ones, letters to homes are more intimidating than letters to workplaces, and repeated mailings suggest genuine threats versus one-time angry letters.

Anonymous Letters and Investigation

Many § 876 cases involve anonymous threatening letters. Defendants believe mail provides anonymity that email lacks. But postal investigators trace mailings through:

• *Postmarks* – Identifying where and when items were mailed narrows suspect pools
• *Fingerprints* – Letters, envelopes, and stamps often contain fingerprints
• *DNA* – Saliva on stamps or envelopes provides DNA evidence
• *Handwriting analysis* – Comparing threatening letters to exemplars from suspects
• *Surveillance footage* – Post offices and mailboxes often have cameras capturing who deposits mail

Defense challenges identification evidence: fingerprints or DNA might have innocent explanations (others handled materials before mailing), handwriting analysis is less reliable than prosecutors claim, surveillance footage is ambiguous or shows someone other than defendants. When identification is weak, reasonable doubt exists about who actually mailed threats.

Extortion vs. Threats

The distinction matters for sentencing and charges:

**Pure threats** under § 876(c) involve no demands for payment or property. “I’m going to kill you for what you did” letters are threats but not extortion. Offense level 12.

**Extortionate threats** under § 876(b) condition avoiding harm on victim compliance: “Pay $10,000 or I’ll reveal your affair,” “Give me the documents or I’ll burn down your business.” These are extortion, receiving higher offense levels (18+) because they involve financial crime elements beyond just threatening.

Defense argues that statements demanding action weren’t actually threatening—they were requests, pleas, or attempts to negotiate. If “threats” were really just strong bargaining positions without genuine intention to harm if demands weren’t met, criminal liability doesn’t attach.

Defending § 876 Charges

Challenge whether defendants actually mailed communications. Absent surveillance showing defendants at mailboxes, fingerprints/DNA on materials, or witnesses observing defendants mail items, identification is circumstantial. Present alternative suspects who had access to materials, motives to frame defendants, or opportunities to mail threats.

Contest whether communications constituted true threats. Present evidence that letters were hyperbolic, satirical, or reflected protected political speech rather than genuine threats. Expert testimony on language analysis can show statements weren’t objectively threatening, that reasonable recipients wouldn’t fear imminent harm, or that context rendered threats non-serious.

Demonstrate lack of subjective threatening intent. Mental health evidence, character testimony establishing non-violent histories, evidence defendants immediately regretted mailings—all support arguments defendants didn’t subjectively intend communications as threats even if recipients perceived them that way.

Negotiate resolutions acknowledging harm without lengthy incarceration. When defendants accept responsibility, demonstrate remorse, and show threats arose from isolated crises rather than dangerous character, prosecutors might accept probation with mental health treatment, restitution to victims for emotional distress, and conditions ensuring no future contact.

Todd Spodek built this firm defending clients whose letters—sent in anger, as desperate attempts to protect interests, or during crises—resulted in federal felony charges. Our work taught us that § 876 prosecutions often involve unsophisticated defendants who believed mail provided anonymity, who didn’t understand that venting threats in letters constituted federal crimes, or who acted impulsively without considering consequences. While threatening communications harm recipients and deserve consequences, distinguishing between people who made terrible mistakes versus those who pose ongoing dangers requires careful assessment of defendants’ histories, circumstances, and likelihood of future conduct. If you’re under investigation for or charged with mailing threatening communications, contact us immediately. Postal investigations develop quickly—forensic analysis of mailings, witness interviews, and evidence collection occur before defendants know they’re suspects. Early legal representation ensures rights are protected and potentially prevents charges if investigators can be convinced threats weren’t genuine. We’re available 24/7.