Opinion ID: 4396223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Iguaran

Text: We recognize that Grimon relies on this Court’s decision in United States v. Iguaran, 821 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2016). But as we explain below, that reliance is 10 Case: 17-15011 Date Filed: 05/13/2019 Page: 11 of 15 misplaced. Iguaran dealt with a wholly different statutory scheme, which, unlike § 1029(a)(3), specifically requires the district court to make a preliminary determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction—not just an interstate commerce “jurisdictional element”—before proceeding with a case. In Iguaran, the defendant pled guilty to a cocaine conspiracy offense under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”). Id. at 1336. Among other things, the statutory text of the MDLEA “makes it a crime to conspire to distribute a controlled substance while on board ‘a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Id. (quoting 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(b)). Unlike the interstate commerce element in § 1029(a)(3), this “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” requirement in the MDLEA is “jurisdictional” in the true, subject matter jurisdiction sense of the word. See id. Specifically, the MDLEA expressly states that “‘[j]urisdiction of the United States with respect to a vessel subject to this chapter is not an element of an offense.’” Id. (quoting 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a)). Instead, “‘[j]urisdictional issues arising under this chapter are preliminary questions of law to be determined solely by the trial judge.’” Id. (quoting 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a)). In light of this statutory language in the MDLEA, this Court has “interpreted the on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” provision “as a congressionally imposed limit on courts’ subject matter jurisdiction, akin to the 11 Case: 17-15011 Date Filed: 05/13/2019 Page: 12 of 15 amount-in-controversy requirement contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Consequently, for a district court to have adjudicatory authority over a charge that the defendant conspired to violate a substantive crime defined in the MDLEA, the government must make a preliminary showing that the vessel was, when apprehended, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Id. In Iguaran, this Court vacated the defendant’s guilty plea because the district court did not make any factual findings with respect to its subject matter jurisdiction under the MDLEA, and the record contained no facts from which such jurisdiction could be determined. See id. at 1337–38. We then remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether subject matter jurisdiction existed, after affording both parties an opportunity to present evidence bearing on whether Iguaran’s vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Id. at 1338. Though Grimon is correct that this Court held in Iguaran that parties may not stipulate to jurisdiction, but rather only to underlying facts that bear on the jurisdictional inquiry, that holding is simply irrelevant to her case. Id. at 1337. Iguaran involved the MDLEA, where the statutory text made clear that “jurisdiction” is not merely an element of the offense. See id. at 1336 (“‘Jurisdiction of the United States with respect to a vessel subject to this chapter is 12 Case: 17-15011 Date Filed: 05/13/2019 Page: 13 of 15 not an element of an offense.’” (emphasis added) (quoting 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a))). Iguaran, as explained above, dealt with a statutory requirement that was truly “jurisdictional”—that is, without facts showing that Iguaran’s vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the district court in that case had no authority to adjudicate his case. Id. Here, by contrast, § 1029(a)(3) did not require the district court to determine that Grimon’s offense affected interstate commerce to have subject matter jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). Rather, the interstate nexus requirement was simply one of several elements of Grimon’s § 1029(a)(3) offense that the government had to prove. See id.; United States v. Klopf, 423 F.3d 1228, 1240 (11th Cir. 2005) (indicating that an effect on interstate or foreign commerce is an element for offenses under § 1029(a)). Neither Iguaran nor any other case cited by Grimon has held that this interstate nexus requirement is akin to the amount in controversy requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or to the jurisdictional requirement in the MDLEA. And we squarely hold that it is not. So, whether the government proved the interstate commerce nexus or failed to prove it, the district court still had subject matter jurisdiction over Grimon’s case and her Count 1 conviction. See Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 735. As to her aggravated identity theft conviction in Count 2, Grimon’s statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), itself does not contain an interstate 13 Case: 17-15011 Date Filed: 05/13/2019 Page: 14 of 15 commerce element. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. However, because a conviction under § 1028A is predicated on the unlawful transfer, possession, or use of a means of identification “during and in relation to [an enumerated] felony violation,” Grimon argues that, if the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the § 1029(a)(3) offense in Count 1, it likewise lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the § 1028A(a)(1) offense in Count 2. For the reasons stated above, we reject Grimon’s jurisdiction claim as to Count 2 as well.