United States v. Bernard Moore ( 2020 )

Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 1 of 32
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14370
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20836-PCH-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BERNARD MOORE,
DERRICK MILLER,
Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 31, 2020)
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 2 of 32
Before ROSENBAUM and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges, and PAULEY.*
PAULEY, District Judge:
Appellants Bernard Moore and Derrick Miller (together, “Appellants”) appeal
their convictions for narcotics trafficking and firearms possession. Appellants argue,
among other things, that: (1) the district court erred in allowing them to be shackled
during trial; (2) the district court mishandled a jury note; and (3) their 18 U.S.C §
922(g) convictions should be vacated under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191
(2019). After careful review of the record and briefs, and with the benefit of oral
argument, we affirm Appellants’ convictions and sentences.1
I. BACKGROUND
The Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) and Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI”) investigated Michael Fonseca and Michael Lewis for suspected narcotics
trafficking in an effort to identify their supplier. The investigation focused on an
apartment in Miami, Florida that law enforcement believed was a stash house (the
“Stash House.”) On December 2, 2015, a confidential informant conducted a
controlled buy. The confidential informant met Fonseca in his car. After telling the
confidential informant that he would retrieve the heroin “from my dog,” Fonseca
went to the Stash House, where he met Miller, and both went inside. When they
*
Honorable William H. Pauley III, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern
District of New York, sitting by designation.
1
We have considered the other arguments raised by Appellants and find them meritless.
2
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 3 of 32
emerged from the Stash House, Fonseca returned to the confidential informant’s car
and handed him a heroin sample. Law enforcement recorded the conversations
between Fonseca and the confidential informant, and, using surveillance footage
later recovered from the Stash House, was able to determine that Fonseca had
subsequently walked to the Stash House before returning to the confidential
informant’s car to conduct the transaction.
On January 8, 2016, DEA agents observed Moore escorting Lewis into the
Stash House and then saw Lewis leave holding what appeared to be a bag. When
DEA agents stopped and searched Lewis’s vehicle, they recovered heroin from two
bags on the vehicle’s floor.
On January 10, 2016, DEA agents executed a search warrant on the Stash
House. Once inside, DEA agents discovered a security camera system recording
Appellants’ comings and goings. Fortuitously for law enforcement, Appellants
preserved the surveillance footage depicting them entering and leaving the Stash
House, locking and unlocking the door, carrying firearms, and patrolling the
perimeter. The surveillance footage showed Appellants inside the Stash House the
day before the search. Law enforcement recovered large amounts of narcotics,
including marijuana, hydrocodone, ethylone, heroin, powder cocaine, and crack
cocaine, as well as narcotics paraphernalia. During the search, DEA agents also
seized Miller’s identification cards and a loaded .357 caliber pistol with Moore’s
3
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 4 of 32
DNA on the trigger. Additionally, DEA agents recovered two firearms from
vehicles parked outside the Stash House: a .45 caliber pistol similar to one depicted
on surveillance footage of Miller on January 6, 2016 and a 9mm pistol with Miller’s
fingerprints on its magazine.
On November 2, 2016, Appellants were arrested. Law enforcement searched
Miller’s residence and discovered narcotics, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm.
The government charged Appellants with conspiracy to distribute a controlled
substance from December 2, 2015 through January 10, 2016 in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1); possession with the intent to distribute a controlled
substance on January 10, 2016 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 3); being
felons in possession of firearms on January 10, 2016 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g) (Count 4); and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking on
January 10, 2016 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 5). The government also
charged Moore with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance on
November 2, 2016 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 8). Finally, the
government charged Miller with possession with intent to distribute a controlled
substance on December 2, 2015 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 2);
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance on November 2, 2016 in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 6); and being a felon in possession of a
firearm on November 2, 2016 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (Count 7).
4
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 5 of 32
Prior to trial, Appellants stipulated that they had prior felony convictions.
During trial, Appellants were shackled. The trial record is bereft of any explanation
for this security measure. In fact, the only reference to shackling at trial occurred
when Miller asked permission to examine a witness himself and, outside the jury’s
presence, the district court acknowledged a logistical issue because he was shackled.
The district court resolved the matter by permitting Miller to question the witness
while seated at counsel table with the assistance of his attorney.
During their deliberations, the jury sent a number of notes seeking guidance
from the district court. Jury Note No. 6 on the second day of deliberations posed the
following request:
Honorable J. Huck,
Various members of the jury would like to speak with you directly about their
safety upon the conclusion of the trial. Can we have a couple of minutes to
discuss this with you?
In response to that jury note, Miller’s counsel moved for a mistrial, which the district
court denied. The government proposed that the district court advise the jurors that
there was no danger and that they should resume their deliberations. Appellants’
counsel requested that the district court interview each juror who expressed safety
concerns.
After conferring with counsel, the district court spoke with the jury
foreperson:
5
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 6 of 32
THE COURT: I got your note. I’ve conferred with counsel. I would be more
than happy to discuss this issue with any juror who feels that it would be
appropriate to discuss it with me on a one-on-one basis. Bring them into the
courtroom, and we will discuss it with them. And then we will proceed
accordingly and see what comes out.
So if I can have those people—just go back and say, whoever wants to
come out and have that discussion, it will be just the judge and the court
reporter, and the court security officer of course.
A JUROR: Thank you, Your Honor.
Thereafter, the district court engaged in the following colloquy with a juror in
camera:
THE COURT: All right. You indicated that you wanted to speak to the
Judge?
A JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What do you want to speak to me about?
A JUROR: Because I am afraid. I don’t know if I have to put my name on
some paper or something like that if I—no? If the decision is not guilty—
THE COURT: I’m sorry?
A JUROR: —I’m afraid of that. I mean guilty, sorry.
THE COURT: Okay. So have you—is there any incident or has anybody said
anything to you or is there anything that’s happened outside of this courtroom
that gives you—
A JUROR: No, no, I’m afraid because if the decision is guilty, I don’t know
if the family of the—
THE COURT: Okay. I understand. I think I understand your concern. But
has there been any threat or any indication by some sign or some gesture or
anything of that nature or anything outside of this courtroom that was said to
6
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 7 of 32
you or you did that would suggest that you have these feelings or cause you
to have these feelings?
A JUROR: No, no, no, no, no. I just want to know if I don’t have to put my
name on anything.
THE COURT: No.
The district court thanked the juror and asked the court security officer to
inquire whether any other juror wished to speak with the court. A second juror came
forward and the following in camera colloquy ensued:
THE COURT: And your foreperson has indicated that you want to talk to the
Court, to the Judge.
A JUROR: Yeah, just was—
THE COURT: Sit down, relax, just take it easy.
A PROSPECTIVE2 JUROR: Just was concerned how the process goes when
we would leave the courthouse. Are we leaving at the same time as family
members are leaving? Are our names documented on the transcripts where
someone could obtain them?
THE COURT: You are concerned about after the case is finished?
A JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: We can help you with that. That shouldn’t be an issue. That’s
your concern?
THE COURT: Has there been anything specific that was said to you or any
threat made to you or any gesture made to you or anything done in this
courtroom that caused your specific concern?
2
While the transcript identifies this juror as “prospective juror,” this appears to be a
typographical error.
7
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 8 of 32
A JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And have you done anything outside this courtroom that
caused you any specific concern?
A JUROR: No, but just how my mind works is a little bit—
THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough.
A PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I’m my own enemy.
THE COURT: We are all that way.
A JUROR: I confuse myself. You know, things are just crazy in this world
and you don’t know.
THE COURT: That concern about leaving at the same time, we can certainly
take care of that very easily.
A JUROR: That’s what everyone else said, so I think we will be fine after
that. Thank you so much.
THE COURT: Will you see if there’s anybody else in there.
A JUROR: No, I spoke for everyone.
THE COURT: Just ask them. If there is anybody else who wants to speak to
me, I will be glad to do so.
A PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Thank you.
No other jurors came forward to speak with the district court. The district
court then summarized the two in camera juror interviews for counsel and the
parties:
THE COURT: Anyway, I had the interview. There were two jurors. I will
give you my impression. It’s not as big an issue or deal as, frankly, I was
concerned about. One expressed an issue about leaving the courthouse after
8
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 9 of 32
a verdict. The other was concerned about did she have to write—sign
something or—I didn’t ask her specifically, but I assume she was talking
about signing the verdict. She’s not the foreperson. I asked them if there was
anything that happened in this courtroom that would suggest there a threat,
anything said to them either in or outside of the courthouse, any gesture made
to them. They all have denied that. I said was there anything outside the
courtroom that caused you any concern. They all denied that. It was, I
wouldn’t say quite a nonevent, but it was about as close to being a nonevent
as one would hope would be the case.
That’s my report to you. I would suggest that we proceed this way, that
we give them an instruction and make it an instruction similar to the one that
was given in May Collins case using the exact same language except I would
add some language stating the Court is further instructing them so that it
becomes a little more definitive.
Thereafter, Appellants moved to strike those two jurors. The district court
denied their motion and counsel then agreed on the following response to Jury
Note No. 6:
The Court and the parties agree that there is no reason for any concern about
the safety of any juror in this case. Therefore the Court further instructs that
you should continue to deliberate on the issues before you and should not let
any such concerns be part of your consideration in your further deliberations.
Later that day, the jury returned a verdict. The jury convicted both
Appellants on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5, and Miller on Count 6. However, the jury
acquitted Moore on Count 8 and Miller on Counts 2 and 7.
The district court sentenced Moore principally to 240 months of
imprisonment and Miller principally to 142 months of imprisonment.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Shackling
9
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 10 of 32
Appellants argue that the district court erred in shackling them during trial.
Indeed, Appellants assert that the district court’s failure to conduct any hearing on
the record to determine whether that security measure was necessary constitutes
reversible error. We disagree.
We typically review a shackling determination for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds
by Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006). However, since Appellants did
not raise this issue with the district court, we review for plain error. Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); see also United States v. Davis, 754 F.3d 278, 283
(5th Cir. 2014) (“Because Davis did not object during the bench trial to the
requirement that he stand trial handcuffed and shackled, our review is limited to
plain error.”). Under the plain error standard, “there must be (1) error, (2) that is
plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an
appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only
if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Baker, 432 F.3d at 1203 (citation omitted).
In Deck v. Missouri, the Supreme Court held that the routine shackling of
defendants during a criminal trial, absent “the presence of a special need,” was
unconstitutional. 544 U.S. 622, 626 (2005). The Supreme Court reasoned that
shackling can (1) affect the presumption of innocence, (2) infringe on defendants’
10
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 11 of 32
ability to communicate with their lawyers and participate in their defense, and (3)
impugn the dignity of the judicial process. Id. at 630–32. However, the Supreme
Court noted that in some circumstances, “these perils of shackling are unavoidable.”
Id. at 632. At times, district courts oversee trials of dangerous defendants who pose
risks in courtrooms. Accordingly, the constitutional due process requirement “is not
absolute” and “permits a judge, in the exercise of his or her discretion, to take
account of special circumstances, including security concerns, that may call for
shackling.” Id. at 633. The Supreme Court recognized “the important need to
protect the courtroom and its occupants” and emphasized that “any such
determination must be case specific; that is to say, it should reflect particular
concerns, say, special security needs or escape risks, related to the defendant on
trial.” Id.
Here, no such particularized determination of the security needs was
memorialized on the record. In fact, the trial transcript contains no reference to
shackling aside from the colloquy concerning Miller’s request to examine a witness.
Typically, a “district court is required to place the reasons for its decision to use such
measures on the record” so that a reviewing court can properly evaluate whether
such measures were appropriate. United States v. Durham, 287 F.3d 1297, 1304
(11th Cir. 2002). Here, the record offers no guidance regarding the decision to
employ physical restraints.
11
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 12 of 32
Deck announced that, “given their prejudicial effect, due process does not
permit the use of visible restraints if the trial court has not taken account of the
circumstances of the particular case.” Deck, 544 U.S. at 632 (emphasis added). It
is unclear if Deck mandates a hearing in order for a district court to employ
nonvisible restraints. However, Appellants could not survive plain error review
regardless of whether Deck applies. Accordingly, we need not reach that question.
Any error here—if it exists—would not warrant reversal. To survive plain
error review, “the error must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which
in the ordinary case means he must demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the
district court proceedings.” Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135 (quotation marks omitted).
With respect to the first concern laid out by the Supreme Court in Deck, there is no
indication in the record that the jury was aware of the shackles. Moreover, the jury
reached a split verdict, acquitting each of the Appellants of at least one charge—an
unlikely outcome had the presumption of innocence been undermined before the
verdict. Regarding the second Deck consideration, the record indicates that
Appellants’ ability to participate in the trial was not affected. Indeed, Miller
examined a witness. As to the third Deck concern, we do not see how shackling in
this case impacted the dignity of the judicial process. Shackling is permitted—albeit
12
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 13 of 32
usually with analysis on the record as to why physical restraints are necessary.
Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in shackling Appellants.3
We admonish district courts, though, that in the typical case, the record should
reflect why restraints are necessary. These security measures should not be the
norm, and it is not overly burdensome to articulate why they are needed. Moreover,
a defendant would be hard-pressed to argue error, plain or otherwise, if he or she
failed to lodge an objection to the judge’s stated justification. Cf. Puckett, 556 U.S.
129 at 134 (“[T]he contemporaneous-objection rule prevents a litigant from
‘sandbagging’ the court—remaining silent about his objection and belatedly raising
the error only if the case does not conclude in his favor.”) (citations omitted).
B. The Jury Note
Appellants contend that the district court mishandled the jury note. With the
benefit of the trial transcript, Appellants assert that the district court cut off the first
juror as that juror was attempting to articulate certain concerns. Next, Appellants
argue that the district court provided counsel with a misleading summary of the in
camera juror interviews. Finally, Appellants maintain that the district court erred in
failing to conduct a Remmer hearing. We disagree with each of these contentions.
3
Moreover, in circumstances such as these, if defendants object during trial, the district
court can rule on their objection and set forth its reasoning. But by staying silent, defendants
deprive the district court of the ability to address any concern, had they objected at trial.
Defendants should be encouraged to lodge objections in the district court, thereby clarifying
issues for a reviewing court.
13
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 14 of 32
We review a district court’s decisions regarding juror misconduct for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Sammour, 816 F.3d 1328, 1336 (11th Cir. 2016).
Appellants contend that the district court interrupted the first juror, preventing that
juror from fully explaining his or her concern. However, the juror clearly articulated
a concern about names appearing on the verdict form. The district court responded
directly to that concern, assuring the juror that his or her name would not appear on
the verdict sheet. The juror raised nothing further. Every indication from the
transcript is that the district court and the juror were engaged in conversation and
may have simply been talking over each other; often, a challenging colloquy for a
court reporter to capture.
Further, there is no evidence that the jurors’ personal safety concerns affected
their impartiality. Ultimately, the jury reached a split verdict. By convicting
Appellants on some counts and acquitting on others, the jury carefully examined the
evidence and reached an impartial verdict. See Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S.
358, 395 (2010) (noting that a split verdict suggested the jury was not infected by
outside influence); United States v. Dominguez, 226 F.3d 1235, 1248 (11th Cir.
2000) (“The careful weighing of evidence inherent in a split verdict makes the
verdict itself evidence that the jury reached a reasoned conclusion free of undue
influence and did not decide the case before the close of evidence.” (quotation marks
omitted)).
14
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 15 of 32
Appellants also take issue with how the district court summarized its juror
interviews. They contend that the district court failed to advise counsel that the
concerns expressed by two jurors permeated the entire jury. However, the district
court’s incomplete summary was harmless. Having lodged an objection, Miller’s
trial counsel preserved the issue for appeal. We have the benefit of reviewing the
transcript of the juror interviews, an opportunity not afforded to Miller’s counsel at
trial. That transcript does not alter our analysis or add value to Miller’s objection at
trial.
Appellants contend that had trial counsel been armed with this information,
he would have moved for every juror to be questioned individually. But the district
court would not have been under any obligation to conduct such an inquiry. Indeed,
interacting with jurors during deliberations is a core discretionary function for trial
judges and should be exercised with great care. Had the district court inquired
further, it “could have backfired by raising concerns in the minds of the jurors that
were not there before.” Sammour, 816 F.3d at 1339. Given the unjustified nature
of the jurors’ fears, it would not have been prudent for the district court to lend
credibility to those concerns by questioning each juror.
Nevertheless, because the district court acknowledged that it “had never
encountered” a similar situation with a deliberating jury, we believe it would be
helpful to provide guidance to district courts on interviewing jurors in camera. The
15
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 16 of 32
best course of action largely follows the procedure the district court employed here.
When learning that one or more jurors in a criminal trial have security concerns, the
district court should confer with counsel to discuss the contours of an in camera
interview. After a district court speaks with a juror in camera, it is entirely
appropriate to summarize its assessment of the interview on the record for the benefit
of the parties. Such a summary can often tell the parties more than a transcript
because the judge can describe the affect of the juror, as the district court did here
when he noted that the situation “was about as close to being a nonevent as one
would hope would be the case.” However, to avoid the kind of skirmish presented
on this appeal, the district court can also share the transcript of the in camera
interview with the parties. That can be done by having the court reporter read it back
to counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459, 1464 (11th Cir.
1985) (“A transcript of the conversation was prepared and was distributed to all
parties after the meeting.”). Finally, the district court can confer with counsel and
deal with any additional applications they may wish to make.
Appellants also contend that the district court erred in not holding a Remmer
hearing to examine each of the jurors. Due process “entitles a defendant to a hearing
in the trial court to ascertain actual prejudice following an allegation of extrinsic
contacts with the jury.” Crowe v. Hall, 490 F.3d 840, 847 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing
Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954)).
16
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 17 of 32
Appellants misconstrue the standard for a Remmer hearing. A district court
must conduct a Remmer hearing when there is evidence of outside influence. See
Watchmaker, 761 F.2d at 1465 (“[T]he failure to hold a hearing constitutes an abuse
of discretion only where there is evidence that the jury was subjected to influence
by outside sources.”). Here, there was no such evidence. The district court
inquired—and both jurors affirmed—that there were no outside influences
propelling their concerns. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
addressing the jury note and declining to conduct a Remmer hearing.
C. Rehaif v. United States
In June 2019, after the parties fully briefed this appeal, the Supreme Court
decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). There, the Supreme Court
clarified that, “in a prosecution under [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g) and [18 U.S.C.]
§ 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed
a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred
from possessing a firearm.” Id. at 2200.
In response to this intervening authority, the parties filed supplemental briefs.
Appellants invoke Rehaif to challenge both the district court’s subject matter
jurisdiction and the merits. We address both in turn, beginning with the threshold
issue of jurisdiction.
17
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 18 of 32
a. Jurisdictional Defect
Appellants—in an attempt to avoid the plain error standard—argue that
because their indictments failed to allege their knowledge of their felon status, the
indictment failed to allege a crime, depriving the district court of jurisdiction. We
disagree.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, imbued with the authority to
hear cases and controversies as prescribed by the Constitution or federal statute. See
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; see also United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 33 (1812)
(“All other Courts created by the general Government possess no jurisdiction but
what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but
what the power ceded to the general Government will authorize them to confer.”).
Congress has conferred jurisdiction over federal criminal prosecutions to the district
courts. 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
There is no dispute that the indictment failed to allege a now-requisite mens
rea element of 28 U.S.C. § 922(g). However, Appellants conflate the lack of subject
matter jurisdiction with the failure to allege a crime. The standard for whether an
indictment sufficiently alleges a crime is not demanding. An indictment tracking
the statutory language and stating approximately the time and place of an alleged
crime is sufficient. See United States v. Brown, 752 F.3d 1344, 1353 (11th Cir.
2014).
18
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 19 of 32
Here, the indictment plainly meets that standard. The indictment stated, in
pertinent part:
On or about January 10, 2016, in Miami-Dade County, in the Southern District
of Florida, the defendants, DERRICK MILLER and BERNARD MOORE,
having been previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for
a term exceeding one year, did knowingly possess a firearm and ammunition
in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of Title l8,
United States Code, Section 922(g)(1).
The indictment further identified the specific firearms and corresponding
ammunition Appellants possessed. This tracks—and cites—the language from 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which states: “It shall be unlawful for any person . . . who has
been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year . . . to . . . possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or
ammunition.”
This indictment was clearly sufficient prior to Rehaif. While the indictment
does not allege that Appellants were aware of their status as felons at the time they
possessed the firearms, the text of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) contains no such requirement.
In Rehaif, the Supreme Court interpreted the statutory language of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) as requiring a defendant to have knowledge of his status. Reading this
knowledge requirement into the statute while also holding that indictments tracking
the statute’s text are insufficient would be incongruous. Although the government
may be well advised to include such mens rea allegations in future indictments, that
language is not required to establish jurisdiction.
19
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 20 of 32
Because there are occasions when defects in an indictment affect subject
matter jurisdiction, it is worth delving into the distinction. Supreme Court precedent
focuses on whether the indictment alleges “offenses against the laws of the United
States.” United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 65, (1951). The absence of an
element of an offense in an indictment is not tantamount to failing to charge a
criminal offense against the United States. However, if the charged conduct itself is
not criminal, then an offense against the United States has not been pled and the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has provided guidance to lower courts regarding when
defects in an indictment touch subject matter jurisdiction. Indeed, Rehaif is not the
first time the Supreme Court has read additional requirements into a statute while an
appeal was pending and subsequent jurisdictional challenges arose. In United States
v. Cotton, the district court imposed a sentencing enhancement based on drug
quantity. 535 U.S. 625, 628 (2002). While defendants’ appeal was pending, the
Supreme Court ruled that a jury must determine the amount of drugs at issue beyond
a reasonable doubt in order for a district court to apply the sentencing enhancement.
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Because there was no such
requirement prior to the announcement of the new rule laid out by Apprendi, neither
the district court nor the government in Cotton asked the jury to make such a finding.
Defendants argued that under Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887), a defective
20
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 21 of 32
indictment stripped the court of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected
this argument, holding that the omission of an element does not affect jurisdiction.
Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631 (“Insofar as it held that a defective indictment deprives a
court of jurisdiction, Bain is overruled.”). The Supreme Court relied on precedents
holding that indictment defects do not implicate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Williams,
341 U.S. at 65 (holding the fact that “the indictment is defective does not affect the
jurisdiction of the trial court to determine the case presented by the indictment.”);
Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916) (“The objection that the indictment
does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the
case.”).
The Supreme Court further commented on the tension between the “concept
of subject-matter jurisdiction . . . [which] can never be forfeited or waived” and the
notion that “the grand jury right can be waived.” Cotton, 535 U.S. at 630. Since
indictment can be waived, it follows that a defect in an indictment cannot destroy
subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the Supreme Court held that the omission of
the quantity of narcotics did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction. Id. at 631.
We have previously considered the question of whether element omissions in
an indictment create jurisdictional defects, in the context of guilty pleas where
defendants waived non-jurisdictional challenges. While Appellants did not plead
guilty, our decisions arising out of guilty pleas are instructive. In United States v.
21
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 22 of 32
Brown, the defendant was indicted for one count of receiving counterfeit money
orders under 18 U.S.C. § 473 and one count of knowingly importing counterfeit
money orders under 18 U.S.C. § 545. 752 F.3d at 1346. While the second count of
the indictment included a charge of knowingly violating the statute, the first did
not—despite well-established precedent requiring knowledge. Brown pled guilty to
the first count but not the second. Later, she challenged her conviction and sentence
on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the indictment did
not state a federal crime. Id. at 1347. In rejecting defendant’s argument, this Court
differentiated between instances when defects in indictments strip a court of
jurisdiction and when they do not.
The lynchpin for a defect that implicates jurisdiction is “whether the
indictment charged the defendant with a criminal ‘offense[ ] against the laws of the
United States.’” Id. at 1353 (alteration in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3231). We
noted that an indictment fails this test where: “(1) a crime . . . simply did not exist in
the United States Code; (2) [the] conduct . . . undoubtedly fell outside the sweep of
the . . . statute; and (3) a violation of a regulation that was not intended to be a ‘law’
for purposes of criminal liability.” Id. (citations omitted). In other words, when the
indictment itself fails to charge a crime, the district court lacks jurisdiction.
However, while “[t]he omission of an element may render the indictment
insufficient, . . . it does not strip the district court of jurisdiction over the case.” Id.
22
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 23 of 32
at 1353–54. “So long as the indictment charges the defendant with violating a valid
federal statute as enacted in the United States Code, it alleges an ‘offense against the
laws of the United States’ and, thereby, invokes the district court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Id. at 1354. Since the indictment merely omitted the element, we ruled
that the district court had jurisdiction.
In Alikhani v. United States, the defendant pled guilty to an indictment
charging him with violating executive orders and regulations forbidding exports to
and certain transactions with select foreign nations. 200 F.3d 732, 733 (11th Cir.
2000). Later, Alikhani challenged his plea, arguing that the indictment failed to
allege he was a U.S. person, as required by the applicable executive orders and
regulations. Id. at 734. Since Alikhani’s guilty plea siloed him to jurisdictional
challenges, he asserted this defect meant the district court did not have jurisdiction.
Id. But we rejected that argument and held that the indictment’s alleged defects,
“even if meritorious, would not implicate the district court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Id.
We reasoned that “[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction defines the court’s authority
to hear a given type of case.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Since “Congress has
provided the district courts with jurisdiction . . . of all offenses against the laws of
the United States,” and the “indictment charg[ed] Alikhani with violating laws of
the United States,” the district court was empowered to hear the case. Id. at 734–35
23
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 24 of 32
(quotation marks omitted). Indeed, this Court contemplated that since the district
court had jurisdiction, it could “enter judgment upon the merits of the indictment,
such as dismissing the indictment on the ground that it does not allege facts showing
that the defendant committed the charged offense.” Id. at 735.
This Court has also dealt with similar jurisdictional challenges following
Apprendi. See United States v. Sanchez, 269 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc),
abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir.
2005); United States v. Cromartie, 267 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2001); McCoy v. United
States, 266 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2001). While these decisions predate Cotton, their
reasoning is parallel. In Sanchez, we held that “[a] jurisdictional defect occurs only
where a federal court lacks power to adjudicate at all.” 269 F.3d at 1273. To
determine whether the federal court has the power to adjudicate, this Court
differentiated between indictments that omitted elements and indictments “where a
defect . . . results in the indictment charging no crime at all.” McCoy, 266 F.3d at
1253.
We explained that jurisdiction cannot be waived, “as parties cannot confer
subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts by consent.” Sanchez, 269 F.3d at 1274.
Since Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(b) allows for a defendant to waive
prosecution by indictment, defects in the indictment “do not go to the district court’s
24
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 25 of 32
subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 1273–74. Identical reasoning supports both our
McCoy and Cromartie decisions.
Opinions finding that defects in indictments do not implicate jurisdiction are
useful given the factual similarities to this case. Equally instructive are opinions
where we concluded the converse—that a defective pleading affected jurisdiction.
For example, in United States v. Peter, the defendant pled guilty to a single
count of conspiring to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act. 310 F.3d 709, 711 (11th Cir. 2002). Peter admitted to misrepresenting license
applications he mailed to the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco,
which constituted mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Id. After his plea, the
Supreme Court decided Cleveland v. United States, where it held that “[s]tate and
municipal licenses in general . . . do not rank as ‘property,’ for purposes of § 1341.”
531 U.S. 12, 15 (2000). Accordingly, “the facts to which Peter pled guilty did not
constitute a crime under Cleveland.” Peter, 310 F.3d at 711.
We distinguished Peter from Cotton and our post-Apprendi line of cases,
“because [the indictment] charged no crime at all.” Id. at 714 (quotation marks
omitted). We noted that “it is clear under these circumstances that the Government’s
proof of the alleged conduct, no matter how overwhelming, would have brought it
no closer to showing the crime charged than would have no proof at all.” Id. at 715.
Further, “Peter’s innocence of the charged offense appears from the very allegations
25
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 26 of 32
made in the superseding information, not from the omission of an allegation requisite
to liability.” Id.
Appellants are also not the first to characterize their Rehaif challenges as
jurisdictional. In United States v. Balde, Balde pled guilty to possessing a firearm
as an illegal alien in the United States. 943 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2019). Days after
the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court decided
Rehaif. Like Appellants here, Balde filed supplemental briefing challenging the
jurisdiction and merits of his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) conviction.
The Second Circuit rejected Balde’s jurisdictional argument. The court
reasoned that Rehaif’s knowledge requirement “is best understood as telling us what
conduct [the statute] prohibits and how the statute would be violated, which is
ultimately a merits question and not one that affects the jurisdiction of the court to
adjudicate the case.” Id. at 90 (quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).
Further, the indictment in Balde “closely tracks the language of the statute while
including specific allegations as to the time, place and nature of Balde’s conduct that
is alleged to constitute a violation of [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g)(5)(A).” Id. at 89.
Ultimately, the law is clear: the omission of an element in an indictment does
not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. A defective indictment
only affects jurisdiction when it fails to allege an offense against the United States.
So long as the conduct described in the indictment is a criminal offense, the mere
26
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 27 of 32
omission of an element does not vitiate jurisdiction. This principle is buttressed by
the fact that defendants can waive their right to indictment by a grand jury and
proceed on an information of the government. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b). In contrast,
subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived, and a court can raise that issue sua
sponte at any time. Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (2019)
(“Unlike most arguments, challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by
the defendant at any point in the litigation, and courts must consider them sua
sponte.” (quotation marks omitted)).
The post-Apprendi line of cases is analogous. While Apprendi dealt with
sentencing enhancements rather than the conviction itself, the underlying facts
supporting the enhancement—or in this case, the elements in a criminal offense—
must be alleged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See Brown,
752 F.3d at 1351. Appellants’ challenge is effectively identical to the challenge the
Supreme Court rejected in Cotton. A valid indictment was returned by the grand
jury. An intervening Supreme Court ruling imposed a new requirement for a
conviction under the applicable statute. But, as the Supreme Court held, that new
hurdle does not extinguish jurisdiction.
Finally, it is worth noting that the indictment the Supreme Court evaluated in
Rehaif omitted the mens rea element. Despite an identical lacuna, the Supreme Court
vacated the conviction on the merits without addressing subject matter jurisdiction.
27
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 28 of 32
And jurisdiction is a threshold issue the Supreme Court would have considered. See,
e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (“On every writ
of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of
this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the
court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and
without respect to the relation of the parties to it.” (quoting Great S. Fire Proof Hotel
Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 453 (1900)). Had the defect in Rehaif—the same defect
we consider here—been jurisdictional, the Supreme Court would have ruled on that
ground rather than on the merits.
Appellants also argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the
indictment failed to track or cite 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Appellants contend that
Rehaif holds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is not a criminal offense, and that 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(2) is the sole operative statute. Based on that contention, Appellants assert
that the indictment failed to charge a criminal offense. But that reading misconstrues
Rehaif. The Supreme Court neither stated nor intimated that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is
not a criminal prohibition. Indeed, the statute provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful
for any person” of certain delineated statuses to “possess in or affecting commerce,
any firearm or ammunition . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (emphasis added). The
language “it shall be unlawful” signals a criminal prohibition. And 18 U.S.C.
28
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 29 of 32
§ 924(a)(2) cannot stand alone as the sole criminal offense, because it is confined to
stating the penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Therefore, while there was a defect in the indictment, it did not deprive the
district court of jurisdiction.
b. Plain Error
Appellants additionally challenge the merits of their conviction in light of
Rehaif. We review that challenge for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S.
55, 59 (2002); United States v. Rahim, 431 F.3d 753, 756 (11th Cir. 2005) (questions
of statutory interpretation raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain
error). Appellants must prove that an error occurred that was both plain and that
affected their substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732
(1993). If they do so, we may, in our discretion, correct the plain error if it “seriously
affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
(alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted).
We may consult the entire record when considering the effect of an error on
appellants’ substantial rights. United States v. Reed, 941 F.3d 1018, 1021 (11th Cir.
2019); see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 (holding that ordinarily, for a court to correct
unpreserved error, “the error must have been prejudicial: It must have affected the
outcome of the district court proceedings.”).
29
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 30 of 32
The Government concedes that the indictment was deficient. The law at the
time did not require the Government to prove that Appellants were aware that they
were felons when they possessed the firearms. And Appellants stipulated—for good
reason—that they were felons prior to trial. Appellants’ stipulation rendered any
evidence the government may have sought to offer regarding their prior convictions
inadmissible. See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997). As such,
there is no evidence in the record from which the jury could have found Appellants
knew of their felon status at the time they possessed the firearms. Accordingly, the
error is plain.
However, it is inconceivable—much less “a reasonable probability”—that
Appellants can show “that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would
have been different.” Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343
(2016) (quotation marks omitted). Analyzing the probability of an outcome under
different circumstances is a challenging endeavor because one has the benefit of
hindsight. But the peculiar facts presented here mitigate our burden. Both
Appellants previously served lengthy sentences for felony convictions. More
notably, both Appellants were previously convicted of violating 18 U.S.C § 922(g),
the very statute at issue here. Moore and Miller were sentenced to 92 and 57 months,
respectively, for those convictions. Remarkably, Moore even bears a tattoo of the
number 92 on his left arm, representing the length of his previous sentence. It is also
30
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 31 of 32
telling that both Appellants stipulated to their prior felonies, presumably to keep the
jury from hearing any details of those convictions. Thus, the record clearly
establishes that both Appellants knew they were felons.
Rehaif has spawned a slew of challenges in this Circuit. This Court examined
a similar issue in Reed. 941 F.3d at 1022. There, we rejected Reed’s request to set
aside his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) conviction because his eight prior felonies and 18-year
sentence “establish[ed] that Reed knew he was a felon [and] he cannot prove that the
errors affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
his trial.” Id. at 1022. The case at hand presents a similar scenario: Appellants
cannot establish that they were unaware of their felon status when they possessed
firearms due to the nature of their prior felonies. Thus, these errors did not affect
Appellants’ substantial rights.
III. CONCLUSION
The district court’s decision to shackle Appellants was not plain error.
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in addressing the jury note.
With respect to the indictment’s omission of the mens rea element for Appellants’
18 U.S.C. § 922(g) charges, we conclude that this error did not deprive the district
court of jurisdiction. And the government’s failure to prove the now-requisite mens
rea element did not constitute a plain error. Finally, upon review of the record, we
31
Case: 17-14370 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 Page: 32 of 32
conclude that Appellants’ remaining arguments are meritless and warrant no
discussion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of conviction.
AFFIRMED.
32