UNITED STATES v. BURTON (2018)

ORDER

In a three-month spree in 2014, Roderick Burton robbed five banks in Cook County, Illinois. He eventually was arrested and charged by a grand jury with five counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Before trial, Burton filed a pro se motion contesting the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction on grounds that his criminal prosecution did not arise under “the Laws of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. The district court denied the motion, explaining that its “subject matter jurisdiction is derived from 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which confers this Court with original jurisdiction over ‘all offenses against the laws of the United States.’ ” The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found Burton guilty on all five counts. He then moved for judgment of acquittal, renewing his challenge to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The court denied this motion and reiterated that § 3231 confers subject-matter jurisdiction in all federal criminal prosecutions. The court later sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Burton continues to press his argument that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his prosecution for the bank robberies. But “[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction in every federal criminal prosecution comes from 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and there can be no doubt that Article III permits Congress to assign federal criminal prosecutions to federal courts.” Hugi v. United States, 164 F.3d 378, 380 (7th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810–11 (9th Cir. 2008).

We have considered Burton’s other arguments, and none has merit.

AFFIRMED