70 F.4th 797
4th Cir.2023Background
- Emilio Moran, a U.S. citizen and former Marine, lived in Okinawa, Japan, and sexually abused a 14‑year‑old girl while he resided there.
- Moran worked as a career counselor for Serco, placed at the Department of Veterans Affairs Transition Assistance Program on Kadena Air Base.
- He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 3261 (Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act) and related federal statutes for conduct occurring in Japan.
- Moran pleaded guilty to two counts in a plea agreement that included an explicit, knowing waiver of appellate rights (except for claims of ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct).
- The district court accepted the plea (finding a sufficient factual basis) and sentenced Moran to 420 months’ imprisonment.
- Moran appealed, arguing he was not “employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces” under § 3261 (thus contending lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction); the government moved to dismiss based on the appeal waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Moran's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moran may evade his appeal waiver by labeling his claim that § 3261 does not apply as a jurisdictional challenge | Moran: § 3261’s employment/accompanying requirement is jurisdictional, so subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and can be raised on appeal despite his waiver | Govt: Moran’s claim attacks a jurisdictional element of the offense (a merits/sufficiency challenge), not the court’s subject‑matter jurisdiction; such claims fall within an enforceable appeal waiver | Held: Moran’s argument is a sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence challenge to an element of the offense, not a challenge to subject‑matter jurisdiction, and therefore is barred by his valid appeal waiver; appeal dismissed |
| Validity and scope of the appeal waiver | Moran contends the waiver cannot bar a jurisdictional claim | Govt: waiver was knowing, unambiguous, and covers the issues Moran raises (except clearly preserved claims like ineffective assistance) | Held: Waiver was valid and knowing; the issues raised fall within its scope and are barred |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603 (4th Cir. 2021) (standards for enforcing appeal waivers)
- United States v. Beck, 957 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2020) (appeal‑waiver scope principles)
- United States v. Cohen, 459 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 2006) (knowingly and intelligently waiving appeal rights assessed by totality of circumstances)
- United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389 (4th Cir. 2002) (unambiguous plea terms enforce waiver)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived in general principle)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (distinguishing jurisdictional defects from other defects in indictments)
- United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822 (1984) (subject‑matter jurisdiction defined and sourced in statute)
- United States v. Carr, 271 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2001) (distinguishing an offense’s jurisdictional element from subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- United States v. White, 771 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2014) (recognition that a jurisdictional element challenge is a merits challenge)
- United States v. Pickering, [citation="771 F. App'x 287"] (4th Cir. 2019) (appeal waiver barred challenge to territorial/jurisdictional element)