The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Isaac Ambe Nformangum for leaving a threatening voicemail message at the office of a United States Senator, according to a per curiam opinion filed Jan. 2, 2025.
Nformangum was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) after a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The appeals court rejected his challenge to the conviction in a brief unpublished opinion.
The case originated when Nformangum was federally indicted on two counts. Count One charged him with threatening to murder a United States official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) and § 115(b)(4). Count Two alleged he transmitted in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
According to court records, the threatening communication took the form of a voicemail message left at the senator's office. The specific content and nature of the threat were not detailed in the available portions of the Fifth Circuit opinion.
The case proceeded through the federal court system with Nformangum initially facing jury trial. However, shortly before jury selection was set to begin, the parties advised the district court of a change in proceedings. The document indicates this led to a bench trial, where a judge rather than jury decided the case.
Federal law 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) criminalizes the interstate transmission of communications containing threats to kidnap or injure another person. The statute requires that the communication cross state lines and contain language that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm.
Section 115 of Title 18 specifically addresses threats against federal officials, including members of Congress. The law makes it a federal crime to threaten to assault, kidnap, or murder current or former federal officials, including senators, with penalties varying based on the severity of the threat.
The Fifth Circuit's decision was issued by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Haynes, Duncan, and Ramirez. The court issued a per curiam opinion, meaning the decision was unanimous and no single judge was identified as the author.
The appeals court designated the opinion as unpublished, following Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5. Unpublished opinions typically address cases that do not establish new legal precedent or involve novel legal questions. Such decisions are generally not citable as precedent in future cases.
The case number 24-20515 indicates the appeal was filed in 2024, while the underlying district court case was numbered 4:22-CR-367-1, showing the criminal charges were initially filed in 2022. This timeline suggests the case proceeded through multiple stages over approximately two years.
Threats against federal officials have been prosecuted with increasing frequency in recent years. The Department of Justice has emphasized enforcement of laws protecting members of Congress and other federal officials from threats and intimidation.
The conviction under § 875(c) carries potential penalties including fines and imprisonment up to five years. Section 115 violations can result in more severe sentences, with maximum terms varying based on the specific subsection and nature of the threat.
Courts have consistently held that the First Amendment does not protect true threats against government officials. The Supreme Court has established that threatening communications must be distinguished from protected political speech, requiring analysis of whether a reasonable person would interpret the statement as a serious expression of intent to commit violence.
The Fifth Circuit's affirmation means Nformangum's conviction stands unless he seeks further review from the Supreme Court. The high court grants certiorari in only a small percentage of cases, particularly in routine criminal appeals that do not present novel constitutional questions.
The case reflects ongoing concerns about threats directed at elected officials and federal employees. Law enforcement agencies have reported increases in threatening communications targeting members of Congress across political parties.
Federal prosecutors typically pursue these cases vigorously, viewing threats against democratic institutions as particularly serious offenses that warrant criminal prosecution rather than civil remedies.
The Southern District of Texas, where the case originated, covers a large geographic area including Houston and other major metropolitan areas. The district regularly handles cases involving interstate communications given the region's size and population density.
Nformangum's conviction demonstrates the reach of federal jurisdiction over communications that cross state lines, even when the threatening message may have been left locally. Modern telecommunications systems often route calls through multiple states, bringing such cases under federal rather than state jurisdiction.
The case serves as a reminder that threatening government officials, regardless of political disagreement or personal grievance, can result in serious federal criminal charges and imprisonment.