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                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]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, 

,

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, 

, 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 

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,

, 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