## Facts

- In 2004, actor John Stamos met Allison Lenore Coss at an adults-only club area at Walt Disney World; they later communicated intermittently for years.
- Photographs were taken during that trip; years later, Coss and Scott Edward Sippola obtained or claimed to have obtained the photos.
- Coss and Sippola created fictitious email personas (“Jessica” and “Brian”) to contact Stamos.
- Emails asserted damaging allegations and claimed possession of compromising photos, threatening reputational harm through tabloid disclosure unless Stamos paid $680,000.
- Stamos contacted federal authorities, who arranged an undercover delivery of the demanded money.
- When Coss and Sippola attempted to collect the $680,000, they were arrested.
- A jury convicted both defendants of conspiracy to extort using interstate communications (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 875(d)) and two counts of transmitting extortionate interstate threats (18 U.S.C. §§ 875(d), 2).
- The district court sentenced each defendant to 48 months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release and denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.

## Issues

1. Whether the indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d), including a threat to injure reputation and intent to extort.
2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) is unconstitutional as void for vagueness or overbroad in violation of due process and the First Amendment.
3. Whether the district court clearly erred in denying a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The indictment was sufficient because it alleged the offense elements, provided adequate notice, and allowed the defendants to plead double jeopardy in future prosecutions.
- Section 875(d) was upheld as constitutional; it was neither unconstitutionally vague nor facially overbroad as applied to extortionate threats.
- The district court did not clearly err in denying acceptance-of-responsibility reductions where defendants went to trial disputing the criminality of their conduct.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment is generally sufficient if it states the offense elements, fairly informs the defendant of the charge, and enables a bar to later prosecution for the same offense.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d), transmitting an interstate communication that contains a threat to injure another’s reputation, coupled with intent to obtain money or something of value, constitutes criminal extortion.
- Section 875(d) targets extortionate threats rather than mere dissemination of embarrassing information; limiting the statute to threats used as leverage for payment defeats vagueness and overbreadth challenges.
- Acceptance-of-responsibility reductions under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 are ordinarily unavailable when defendants proceed to trial contesting factual guilt or the wrongfulness of their conduct; appellate review is deferential and requires clear error for reversal.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld extortion convictions arising from emails threatening reputational harm unless a large payment was made, holding that the indictment adequately alleged a § 875(d) offense, the statute validly criminalizes extortionate threats without violating the First Amendment or due process, and the defendants were not entitled to acceptance-of-responsibility sentencing reductions after contesting culpability at trial.


United States v. Coss, 677 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2012)