No. 20-1129 In the Supreme Court of the United States SCOTT PHILLIP FLYNN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record DAVID A. HUBBERT Acting Assistant Attorney General S. ROBERT LYONS KATIE BAGLEY JOSEPH B. SYVERSON GREGORY VICTOR DAVIS Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether petitioner understood the nature of his offense when he pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. 2. Whether a charge of conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 is void for vagueness absent a requirement that the government prove a nexus between a defendant’s conduct and a par- ticular administrative proceeding. 3. Whether a district court is required to hold a sep- arate jury trial to determine the amount of restitution where a criminal defendant has stipulated to a range of financial loss caused by his unlawful conduct and the court-determined restitution figure is within that amount. (I) ADDITIONAL RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (D. Minn.): United States v. Flynn, No. 16-cr-347 (Jan. 24, 2019) United States Court of Appeals (8th Cir.): United States v. Flynn, No. 19-1263 (Aug. 13, 2020) (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinion below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Statement ...................................................................................... 1 Argument ....................................................................................... 6 Conclusion ................................................................................... 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Alvarez v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1389 (2017) ................ 24 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) ..................... 23 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) ....................... 26 Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) ................ 8, 10 Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005) ....................... 8, 15 Budagova v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 161 (2019) .............. 24 CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011) ........... 18 Coplan v. United States, 571 U.S. 819 (2013) ..................... 17 Fontana v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1022 (2018) .............. 24 Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942) ................ 16, 18 Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910) .............................. 16, 18 Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) ........................................................................ 16, 18, 19 Hester v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 509 (2019) .................... 24 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) .................................................................................... 23 John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008).............................................................. 18 Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020) .................... 17 Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) ............................ 20 Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) ................................ 18 Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018) .... 4, 15, 21 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) .................. 8 McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) .................. 17 Petras v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 373 (2018) .................... 24 Sealed Case, In re, 283 F.3d 349 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 891 (2002) ....................................... 13 Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012) .............................................................................. 24, 25 United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) .................... 21 United States v. Atilla, 966 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2020) .......... 22 United States v. Carillo, 860 F.3d 1293 (10th Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 12 United States v. Cefaratti, 221 F.3d 502 (3d Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... 13 United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 819 (2013) .............. 20 United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) ................... 19 United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 959 (2013) ....................................... 24 United States v. Díaz-Concepción, 860 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 13 United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2015) .......... 12 United States v. Fernandez, 205 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................... 11 United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) ...... 25, 26 United States v. Herman, No. 19-50830, 2021 WL 1811843 (5th Cir. May 6, 2021) .......................... 22 United States v. Hunter, 618 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 24 United States v. Kamer, 781 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 819 (1986) ....................................... 11 United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 924 (1958) ....................................... 17 V Cases—Continued: Page United States v. Leahy, 438 F.3d 328 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1071 (2006) ..................................... 25 United States v. Lloyd, 901 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 55 (2019) .............. 12 United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) .................... 22 United States v. Norvell, 729 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 1224 (2014) ........... 15 United States v. Parlato, No. 15-CR-149, 2019 WL 988450 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2019) ....................... 22 United States v. Pena, 314 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2003) ........ 12 United States v. Pineda-Buenaventura, 622 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2010) ............................................... 12 United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 13 United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) ...................... 7, 15 United States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300 (4th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 11 Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012) .......................... 23 Constitution, statutes, and rules: U.S. Const.: Amend. V (Due Process Clause) .................................... 11 Amend. VI ........................................................................ 26 Act of June 24, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701 ........................... 18 Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A .................................................................. 24 18 U.S.C. 3664(f )(1)(A) .................................................... 24 Rev. Stat. § 5440 (1901) ......................................................... 18 18 U.S.C. 371 ................................................................. passim 18 U.S.C. 1503(a) ................................................................... 21 26 U.S.C. 7201 .......................................................................... 2 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) ..................................................................... 2 VI Statutes and rules—Continued: Page 26 U.S.C. 7212 .................................................................. 20, 21 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) ................................................................... 21 Fed. R. Crim. P.: Rule 11 ..................................................................... passim Rule 11(b)(1)(G) ............................................4, 7, 11, 12, 14 Rule 11(h) ........................................................................... 8 Rule 11 advisory committee’s note (1974 Amendments) ..................................................... 8 Rule 52(b) ......................................................................... 22 Miscellaneous: 1A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure (5th ed. 2020) ................................................ 9, 11 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 20-1129 SCOTT PHILLIP FLYNN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION OPINION BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-15a) is reported at 969 F.3d 873. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on August 13, 2020. A petition for rehearing was denied on September 17, 2020 (Pet. App. 39a). The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on February 11, 2021. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). STATEMENT Petitioner pleaded guilty in the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Minnesota to one count of conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and one count of filing a false tax return (1) 2 in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1). Judgment 1. Peti- tioner sought to withdraw his pleas before sentencing; the district court denied his motion. Pet. App. 1a-2a. The court sentenced petitioner to