## Facts

- Albert John Blair, Jr. lived in the Dominican Republic and operated a sports-betting business.
- The federal government alleged that Blair accepted wagers on professional and college basketball games from bettors located in the Northern District of Oklahoma.
- The government charged Blair with knowingly using a wire-communication facility to transmit bets or wagers in interstate or foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a), along with other offenses.
- Blair entered a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
- After pleading guilty, Blair appealed, arguing that the district court lacked an adequate factual basis to accept the plea because, in his view, § 1084(a) is a specific-intent offense requiring proof that he knew his conduct was unlawful.
- Blair relied on Cohen v. United States, where the Ninth Circuit read § 1084(a) to require knowledge of illegality.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a) requires proof that the defendant knew his use of wire communications to transmit bets or wagers was illegal, such that the district court lacked a sufficient factual basis under Rule 11 to accept Blair’s guilty plea.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that § 1084(a) is not a specific-intent statute requiring proof that the defendant knew the conduct was illegal.
- Because knowledge of illegality is not an element of § 1084(a), Blair’s admissions supporting that he operated a betting business and used wire communications to take wagers provided a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea.

## Legal Principles

- In interpreting a federal criminal statute, courts begin with the statutory text; mens rea terms such as “knowingly” ordinarily require awareness of the conduct, not awareness that the conduct violates the law.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a), the government must show that a defendant (1) was engaged in the business of betting or wagering and (2) knowingly used a wire communication facility (3) to transmit bets or wagers (or information assisting in placing bets or wagers) (4) in interstate or foreign commerce; the statute does not add a requirement that the defendant knew the conduct was unlawful.
- A guilty plea satisfies Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11’s factual-basis requirement when the record shows facts that meet each element of the offense as properly defined; a plea is not invalid merely because the defendant did not admit a non-element (such as knowledge of illegality).
- A court is not required to adopt another circuit’s reading of a statute when that reading conflicts with the statute’s plain language; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow Cohen’s interpretation of § 1084(a).

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed Blair’s conviction, holding that the Wire Act’s “knowingly” requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a) refers to intentional use of wire communications to transmit wagering-related communications while engaged in a betting business, not to knowledge that such conduct is illegal, and therefore the district court had an adequate factual basis under Rule 11 to accept Blair’s guilty plea.


United States v. Blair, 54 F.3d 639 (1995)