UK citizen and former U.S. Marine Steven Greenoe (pictured right) pleaded guilty yesterday to one count of violating the Arms Export Control Act and one count of filing a false ATF form in connection with his unlicensed exports of more than 60 guns from the United States to the United Kingdom. Greenoe packed the weapons in suitcases that he took with him on ten flights from the United States.

The most interesting aspect of the case is how easily Greenoe was able to ship these guns in his luggage. The guns were disassembled and scattered throughout his suitcases. During a trip last May to Atlanta, where Greenoe was catching a connecting flight to Manchester, scanners detected the gun parts when Greenoe checked his luggage in Raleigh-Durham. Somehow or other he convinced TSA agents that he was a firearms salesman and that the parts were non-working “engineering samples.” He was then allowed to board his flight to Atlanta and then to continue on to Manchester with the guns in his luggage.

An investigation into a cache of guns recovered by British police ultimately led British authorities to Greenoe. Greenoe was arrested at the Raleigh airport in July after a tip-off from British police. Greenoe apparently told U.S. investigators that he was a security consultant and that these guns were for his employees working in pirate-infested waters off the coast of Somalia. Even were this colorful explanation true, it would not justify failing to obtain an export license for the guns.

In a previous post on the prosecution of Mark Knapp for his efforts to export a military surplus F-5 fighter jet to Iran, I criticized the apparent defense offered by Knapp’s attorney — that the F-5 could be shot down by U.S. fighter jets. Well, apparently Knapp and his attorney have come to their senses, and Knapp has now pleaded guilty to the charge relating to the fighter jet and other defense items that Knapp was attempting to export, including an ejection seat and a military radio.

Today’s news report indicates that Knapp was turned in by one of his customers who was caught attempting to export an ejection seat which he had bought from Knapp. Knapp’s attorney further added that Knapp began to sell his private collection of military gear after he was unable to find a job. Some of the items charged in the indictment, according to Knapp’s attorney, had been purchased by Knapp on eBay.

ABOVE: Professor Reece Roth

---

On Wednesday, January 5, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal of Professor J. Reece Roth, a professor emeritus at the University of Tennessee who had been convicted of violating the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”). The conviction was based on, among other things, Professor Roth permitting access by a foreign graduate student to technical data relating to an Air Force military drone project.

Professor Roth argued in his appeal that the technical data was not export-controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations because the next phase of the project involved testing his research on commercial aircraft. The Sixth Circuit dismissed this by noting that the project ultimately contemplated a military application of the research.

In reaching this result, the Sixth Circuit cited the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Pulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 328 (7th Cir. 2009). That decision held that although the AECA banned judicial review of a decision to place a category of items on the United States Munitions List {“USML”), it did not prohibit judicial review of the question as to whether a particular item fell within a category of items designated by the USML.

In addition, Roth argued that the lower court’s jury instruction on the “wilfulness” standard required for a conviction under the AECA was incorrect. According to Roth, the court should have given the jury an instruction that he could only be convicted if he was aware that the controlled technology was on the USML. The Sixth Circuit rejected this contention and held that the lower court properly instructed the jury that Roth could be convicted simply if he was aware that his conduct was unlawful. Although the Eight Circuit in United States v. Gregg, 829 F.2d 1430, 1437 & n.14 (8th Cir. 1987) appeared to hold that the defendant needed to be aware that the exported item was on the USML, the Sixth Circuit followed the looser rules of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Circuits which only require that the defendant knew that the export was unlawful.