United States v. Bryan Evan Singer
963 F.3d 1144
11th Cir.2020Background
- Bryan Singer was indicted for attempting to export 303 Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 modems to Cuba without an export license (charged under 18 U.S.C. § 554(a) as violating 50 U.S.C. § 1705 and 15 C.F.R. § 746.2(a)).
- NanoStations are classified on the Commerce Control List (ECCN 5A002.a.1) as encryption items that require a license to Cuba; the “support for the Cuban people” general license does not authorize export of items with controls beyond antiterrorism.
- On May 1–2, 2017, DHS agents inspected Singer’s vessel, discovered a hidden compartment under a screwed-down bed containing 303 NanoStations and other electronics, and seized the items; Singer admitted he lied to officers about the items.
- Singer sailed to Cuba on May 3, 2017, returned May 5, and had never applied for an export license or filed required Electronic Export Information.
- A jury convicted Singer of attempted export and making false statements; the district court added a two-level obstruction enhancement at sentencing for perjured trial testimony. Singer appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge, insufficient substantial-step proof, erroneous refusal of an ignorance-of-law jury instruction, and error in the obstruction enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether govt proved Singer knew the facts making NanoStations controlled (scienter) | Gov't: evidence of repeated written warnings on Singer's CG-3300 forms, his paperwork referencing export rules, lies and concealment, and other circumstantial evidence suffice to prove he knew a license was required | Singer: government had to prove he knew the particular technical basis (encryption) that made NanoStations controlled; no direct evidence he knew that fact | Held: Court required proof of knowledge of the facts making the export illegal and found the government met that burden by circumstantial evidence (warnings, concealment, lies, paperwork) |
| Whether Singer took a "substantial step" toward attempted export | Gov't: obtaining CG-3300, preparing vessel, allowing outbound inspection and later sailing to Cuba support substantial step | Singer: he canceled the May 2 trip; remained docked; only made preparatory acts, so no substantial step | Held: Evidence viewed favorably to gov't showed Singer did not cancel the trip as claimed, took substantial steps, and later sailed to Cuba, so substantial-step element satisfied |
| Whether district court erred in refusing Singer's proposed ignorance-of-law jury instruction | Gov't: existing instruction correctly required knowledge that exportation was contrary to law; an instruction focused on knowledge of facts suffices | Singer: ignorance of law was a defense and jury should have been instructed accordingly | Held: Refusal proper—court’s instruction required knowledge that acts were contrary to law (i.e., knowledge of facts); Singer’s proposed instruction was unnecessary and risked confusion |
| Whether sentencing court erred applying two-level obstruction enhancement for perjury | Gov't: Singer testified inconsistently and falsely on material matters (who he hid items from; whether he canceled trip), warranting §3C1.1 enhancement | Singer: district court relied on jury verdict instead of independent findings; any false statements were not material or were mitigated by apologies | Held: No clear error—district court made independent findings that Singer gave material, knowingly false testimony and reasonably found perjury supporting enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (courts presume Congress requires scienter as to each element that criminalizes otherwise innocent conduct)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) (government must prove defendant knew the facts that made otherwise innocent conduct unauthorized under a regulatory scheme)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) ("willfulness" requires knowledge of the duty or facts making conduct unlawful; knowledge can be inferred from warnings or circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Warren, 612 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1980) (government must prove defendant knew reporting duty; warnings or prior knowledge can satisfy that element)
- United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335 (11th Cir. 2018) (elements of attempt: specific intent plus a substantial step strongly corroborating that intent)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjury at trial may justify sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice)