United States v. Brian Bishop, 740 F.3d 927

AECA prohibits export of defense articles without license; Bishop convicted for attempting to export ammunition to Jordan without a license.
Bishop, a former State Department FSO in Amman, shipped ~7,496 rounds of 9mm/7.62x39 and other ammo from Alabama to Jordan using Paxton; shipment labeled ORM-D but mixed with ammo and weights, with some boxes relabeled during packing.
State Department training and manuals (FAM §611.5–611.6) warned that ammunition shipment is prohibited and may carry criminal penalties; Beecroft testified these rules were taught in orientation and manuals referenced the AECA.
DSS interview revealed Bishop admitted to wrongdoing and explained his rationale; defense argued only policy violation; the government relied on training, notifications, and deception evidence.
Trial court found willfulness and unlawful conduct, convicting on Count I (AECA) and acquitting Count II; on appeal, court affirms, holding willfulness requires knowledge conduct is unlawful, not necessarily knowledge of USML specifics.
District court ultimately sentenced Bishop and Bishop appeals asserting lack of willfulness proof and insufficiency of evidence to show knowledge of illegality versus policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether willfulness requires knowledge of illegality generally or knowledge of USML specifics	Bishop: must know specific USML coverage to be willful	State: only general knowledge that export is unlawful required	Knowledge of illegality suffices; no need for USML-specific knowledge
Whether sufficient evidence supports that Bishop knew exporting ammo was illegal, not merely policy violation	Bishop argues evidence favors policy violation	Government presented training, notices, and deception indicating knowledge of wrongdoing	Sufficient evidence; trier of fact could find willfulness beyond reasonable doubt

Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1998) (willfulness requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful (no need to know licensing specifics))
United States v. Hsu, 364 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2004) (upheld AECA export convictions; willfulness defined broadly)
United States v. Roth, 628 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2011) (AECA knowledge of illegality suffices; not necessary to know USML basis)
United States v. Tsai, 954 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1992) (knowledge that export is unlawful matters; basis of knowledge less critical)
United States v. Murphy, 852 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988) (conviction sustained where defendant knew prohibited activity occurred)