USA v. Romancee George

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Romancee Oshay George. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-12294

Date Filed: 09/18/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12294
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20717-JAL-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROMANCEE OSHAY GEORGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 18, 2017)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-12294

Date Filed: 09/18/2017

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Romancee George appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to carjacking,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1). On appeal, George argues that the district
court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him because the government
failed to demonstrate that George had the requisite intent to cause serious bodily
injury or death: a required element of his offense. No reversible error has been
shown; we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, even
when raised for the first time on appeal. United States v. Iguaran, 821 F.3d 1335,
1336 (11th Cir. 2016). “So long as the indictment charges the defendant with
violating a valid federal statute as enacted in the United States Code, it alleges an
‘offense against the laws of the United States’ and, thereby, invokes the district
court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Brown, 752 F.3d 1344, 1354
(11th Cir. 2014).
Here, the indictment -- tracking the pertinent statutory language -- stated that
George “with the intent to cause death and serious bodily harm, did take a motor
vehicle that had been transported, shipped, and received in interstate and foreign
commerce . . . from the person and presence of another . . . by force and violence,
and by intimidation, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2119(1)

2

Case: 16-12294

Date Filed: 09/18/2017

Page: 3 of 3

and 2.” Because the indictment charged George with violating a valid federal
statute, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over George’s criminal
case. See id.
George’s contention that the government failed to provide a factual basis
sufficient to prove the intent element of the crime does not implicate the district
court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. * See United States v. Fairchild,
803 F.2d 1121, 1124 (11th Cir. 1984) (defendant’s claim that an insufficient
factual basis existed to support the indictment was non-jurisdictional).
AFFIRMED.

*

George denies expressly that he is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
guilty plea. His challenge is only to the district court’s jurisdiction.
3