979 F.3d 1141
6th Cir.2020Background
- Derrick Grant, a federal pretrial detainee, punched a private correctional officer at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC) while awaiting sentencing for armed robbery.
- NEOCC is privately operated and houses federal detainees pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Marshals Service; the assaulted guard was working under that contract.
- Grant was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 111 (with § 1114 incorporated), which criminalizes assaulting officers/employees of the United States or persons assisting them in performance of official duties.
- At a probable-cause hearing Grant argued the private guard was not a “designated” person under § 1114 because she assisted an agency, not a specific federal officer or employee; a Deputy U.S. Marshal testified she was assisting federal duties and probable cause was found.
- Grant pleaded guilty, was sentenced, and appealed, arguing § 111 does not cover private contractors performing federal functions; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, relying principally on United States v. Bedford.
Issues
| Issue | Grant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 111/1114 covers a private contractor who performs duties a federal employee would perform | § 1114 protects only those assisting a specific federal officer/employee, not those assisting an agency via contract | § 1114 covers private contractors who assist federal officers/agencies in performing official duties; the guard was performing federal duties under the Marshals’ contract | The Sixth Circuit affirmed: private contractors performing the same federal functions are “persons designated” under § 1114 and are protected by § 111 |
| Whether the alleged statutory error was forfeited by guilty plea or preserved by the probable-cause objection | Preserved at the probable-cause hearing, so de novo review should apply | Forfeited by guilty plea, so plain-error review applies | Court assumed de novo review for decision; government prevails under either standard |
| Whether Bedford controls interpretation of § 1114 | Bedford was wrongly decided and should be limited because it conflates assisting an agency with assisting an individual officer | Bedford correctly interprets § 1114 to include contractors performing federal functions | Bedford controls; its interpretation is binding on the panel |
| Whether there is a broader constitutional or federalism problem with applying § 111 to private contractors | Application risks over-federalization of conduct traditionally handled by states | Scope of federal criminal law is for Congress; current statutory text supports coverage of contractors | Policy concerns do not justify departing from Bedford or the statutory text |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bedford, 914 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2019) (held that a contract mail carrier was a “designated” person under § 1114 and protected by § 111)
- United States v. Luedtke, 771 F.3d 453 (8th Cir. 2014) (concluded a state guard supervising federal inmates under a Marshals contract is covered by § 1114)
- United States v. Jacquez-Beltran, 326 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 2003) (held contractor-like personnel supervising federal prisoners fall within § 1114 protection)
- United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143 (4th Cir. 1994) (recognized that private personnel performing federal custodial functions can be covered under § 1114)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (articulates plain-error review for forfeited claims)
- United States v. Moore, 567 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2009) (discusses preservation and de novo review on preserved challenges)