United States v. Rubin
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3087
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Ira Rubin was charged in a superseding indictment with, inter alia, conspiracy to violate the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) (Count One), plus bank/wire fraud and money‑laundering conspiracies; he pleaded guilty to Counts One, Eight, and Nine.
- The indictment alleged Rubin set up phony merchants and bank accounts to process and disguise payments from U.S. gamblers for Internet poker companies.
- Rubin entered an unconditional written guilty plea and was sentenced to an aggregate 36 months’ imprisonment (an upward variance from an 18–24 month Guidelines range).
- On appeal Rubin argued Count One alleged a “non‑offense” under the UIGEA because it described him as only performing the activities of a financial transaction provider—an activity the statute generally excludes—so the indictment failed to state an offense and the district court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction to accept his plea.
- The Second Circuit assumed for argument that Count One might allege a non‑offense but held that such a defect is non‑jurisdictional and thus waived by Rubin’s unconditional guilty plea.
- The court also affirmed the sentence as neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable given Rubin’s role and criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment’s alleged failure to charge an offense under the UIGEA deprived the district court of subject‑matter jurisdiction | Gov: Count One plainly tracks statute and invokes jurisdiction; defects in an indictment do not deprive court of jurisdiction | Rubin: Count One charged only excluded "financial transaction provider" activity, so it alleged a non‑offense and deprived the court of jurisdiction to accept his plea | The alleged failure to state an offense is a non‑jurisdictional indictment defect; Rubin waived it by pleading guilty unconditionally (affirmed) |
| Whether an unconditional guilty plea preserves factual/evidentiary challenges to the indictment | Gov: A knowing, voluntary unconditional plea waives all non‑jurisdictional defects | Rubin: He may still challenge that the conduct charged is not a crime under the statute | Guilty plea waived non‑jurisdictional challenges; only narrow exceptions (not claimed here) preserve review |
| Whether Cotton limits non‑jurisdictional commentary to omissions only | Gov: Cotton broadly holds indictment defects are non‑jurisdictional, including claims that charged conduct is not an offense | Rubin: Cotton addresses omissions (e.g., missing elements), not that the charged conduct is not criminal | Court reads Cotton broadly — challenges that alleged conduct is not a crime are merits issues, not jurisdictional |
| Whether Rubin’s sentence was reasonable (procedural/substantive) | Gov: District court adequately explained variance; Rubin’s recidivism and central role justified sentence | Rubin: Sentence procedurally and substantively unreasonable and disproportionate to his role | Sentence affirmed: no plain error procedurally; substantively within permissible range given role and history |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (indictment defects do not deprive a court of jurisdiction)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives prior non‑jurisdictional claims)
- Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (1916) (indictment that fails to charge a crime goes to the merits, not jurisdiction)
- United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58 (1951) (a court has jurisdiction to try the person for the offense charged even if indictment may later be found defective)
- United States v. Coffin, 76 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 1996) (requirements to reserve appellate rights after a guilty plea)
- United States v. Garcia, 339 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2003) (unconditional guilty plea waives non‑jurisdictional defects)