United States v. Danielle Lenise Brown
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9834
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Brown pled guilty to receiving 481 counterfeit USPS money orders from Nigeria with intent to pass them as true.
- Indictment alleged Count One (receiving) and Count Two (importing) but did not expressly include mens rea for Count One.
- Brown signed a plea agreement waiving appeal and collateral attack rights.
- Plea colloquy claimed Brown knew the money orders were counterfeit; factual basis tracked indictment language.
- PSR calculated sentence 63 months; Brown raised no indictment defect challenge in district court; sentenced accordingly.
- Court addresses whether indictment defect is jurisdictional and whether waiver defeats the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the indictment defect non-jurisdictional or jurisdictional? | Brown argues omission of mens rea deprives court of jurisdiction. | Brown contends defect deprives district court of power to adjudicate. | Omission is non-jurisdictional; waiver applies. |
| Did Brown waive the indictment challenge by guilty plea or appeal waiver? | Brown preserved no jurisdictional challenge; waiver barred appeal. | Government says waiver extinguishes challenge. | Brown's challenge was waived by guilty plea and appeal waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cotton, 535 F.3d 627 (U.S. (2002)) (indictment defects do not deprive court of jurisdiction; Cotton overruled Bain.)
- Sanchez v. United States, 269 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2001) (indictment omitting an element is non-jurisdictional (en banc).)
- Cromartie v. United States, 267 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2001) (omission of drug-type/quantity elements not jurisdictional.)
- McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2001) (grand jury requirement is non-jurisdictional; can be waived.)
- Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 2000) (statutory arguments not jurisdictional; indictment charged laws of the United States.)
- Peter v. United States, 310 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 2002) (affirmative misalignment in indictment can be jurisdictional if outside charged offense; otherwise non-jurisdictional.)
- Meacham v. United States, 626 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1980) (indictment lacking a crime (conspiracy to attempt) invalid; jurisdictional defect in narrow cases.)
- Izurieta v. United States, 710 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2013) (indictment alleging civil-regulation violation not criminally punishable—jurisdictional defect.)