United States v. Sean Brehm
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16711
4th Cir.2012Background
- Brehm, a South African DynCorp employee, stabbed a UK contractor at Kandahar Airfield (KAF) while overseas; MEJA provides extraterritorial federal jurisdiction for offenses committed outside the United States by those accompanying the Armed Forces; indictment charged Count Two under MEJA for assault resulting in serious bodily injury; district court denied motions to dismiss MEJA-based charges; Brehm pleaded guilty to Count Two with right to appeal the district court’s denial; he challenges MEJA’s application and the nexus to the United States.
- Brehm’s employment contract warned that he may be subject to U.S. criminal jurisdiction under MEJA when outside the United States; he argues the statute, while facially valid, cannot be constitutionally applied to him given lack of U.S. nexus.
- KAF was a NATO base with extensive U.S. presence; U.S. control over personnel and activities there supports American criminal jurisdiction as a practical matter and aligns with Congress’s extraterritorial authority.
- The Agreement regarding Status of U.S. Military and Civilian Personnel in Afghanistan authorized U.S. criminal jurisdiction over its personnel, interpreted by the court as including contractors like DynCorp; Afghanistan did not prosecute similarly situated personnel, making U.S. prosecution not arbitrary.
- The court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions de novo; it ultimately affirms the MEJA-based conviction on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MEJA is constitutional as applied to Brehm. | Brehm argues MEJA cannot constitutionally reach him. | Brehm’s conduct falls within MEJA’s extraterritorial scope due to his DynCorp employment; U.S. interest and sovereignty justify enforcement. | MEJA constitutional as applied to Brehm. |
| Whether due process requires a nexus between defendant and the United States. | Nexus to the United States is lacking since neither party visited the U.S. | Nexus exists through U.S. military presence and contractual ties; enforcement not arbitrary. | Due process satisfied; enforcement not arbitrary. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1990) (nexus sufficient in MDLEA context; proceeds with extraterritorial reach)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (touched on extraterritorial jurisdiction and due process concerns)
- Angulo-Hernandez, 565 F.3d 2 (1st Cir. 2009) (Cooperation agreement suffices for due process in maritime drug offenses)
- United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2011) (due process fair warning; knowing consequences of illicit arms dealings)