United States v. Tremaine Johnson, 932 F.3d 965

Tremaine Johnson, a Florida parolee, moved to Michigan without permission; Florida issued a fugitive warrant and enlisted U.S. Marshals to arrest him.
Marshals arrested Johnson in Michigan, discovered a firearm in his car, and federal authorities charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); he was convicted by a jury.
This Court previously affirmed the conviction but vacated sentence twice and remanded for resentencing; at the third sentencing Johnson challenged federal jurisdiction.
Johnson argued federal agents executed the Florida warrant and thus Florida retained primary jurisdiction, so federal prosecution/sentencing was improper.
The district court denied the challenge because Florida did not object to federal proceedings and held any sequence issue would not strip federal jurisdiction; the court reinstated supervised release.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit considered Article III standing to raise primary-jurisdiction/comity objections and whether lack of primary jurisdiction defeats federal jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant has Article III standing to challenge order of custody/primary jurisdiction	Johnson: he can object to the order because it affects his rights and custody	Gov: challenge is between sovereigns and not justiciable by prisoner	Court: Johnson has Article III standing to raise primary-jurisdiction objection
Whether Florida’s prior custody (warrant arrest) meant Florida had exclusive/primary jurisdiction preventing federal prosecution	Johnson: Florida’s arrest/warrant gave it priority; federal prosecution was improper	Gov: Even if Florida retained primary jurisdiction, it does not deprive federal court of jurisdiction; states may permit federal proceedings first	Court: Lack of primary jurisdiction does not divest federal court of criminal jurisdiction
Whether federal conviction/sentence is void due to sequence of custody/prosecution	Johnson: sequence violated comity and should invalidate conviction/sentence	Gov: Sequence dispute is an executive/comity matter and does not void federal judgment absent state objection or waiver	Court: Federal conviction and sentence remain valid; state comity issues do not nullify jurisdiction
Proper remedy if primary jurisdiction were wrongly exercised	Johnson: vacatur or transfer required	Gov: Remedy lies in executive coordination between sovereigns, not voiding federal judgment	Court: No relief; federal court lawfully proceeded and sentence affirmed

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (Article III standing threshold and distinction from merits)
Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 1998) (defines "primary jurisdiction" as custody/service priority, not jurisdictional deficiency)
Rawls v. United States, 166 F.2d 532 (10th Cir. 1948) (sequence of state consent does not destroy federal jurisdiction)
Moody v. Holman, 887 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2018) (prisoner may have standing to contest which sovereign incarcerates him)
Johnson v. Gill, 883 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2018) (addressed waiver of primary jurisdiction and effect on federal sentence)
Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011) (individuals can have Article III standing when state-sovereignty issues cause individual constitutional injury)
United States v. Graves, 60 F.3d 1183 (6th Cir. 1995) (standard of de novo review for jurisdictional questions)