## Facts

- The U.S. Air Force funded a defense research project with Atmospheric Glow Technologies, Inc. to develop plasma actuator technology for military drone aircraft.
- John Reece Roth, a University of Tennessee professor and plasma-technology author, served as a consultant and minority owner of the contractor.
- The Air Force identified certain technical data (including project reports and a test plan) as export controlled.
- Roth knew the project used “6.2” military research funding and understood this meant export-control restrictions applied unless a license was obtained.
- Roth signed a subcontract (Task Order 102) acknowledging export-control limits for Phase II work.
- Despite repeated concerns and warnings from university administrators, Roth allowed two foreign graduate students (Chinese and Iranian nationals) access to export-controlled project data and/or contract-developed testing equipment.
- In 2006, Roth traveled to China and took paper and electronic copies of project reports after being warned not to take project data abroad.
- The government charged Roth with, among other offenses, multiple counts of exporting defense articles/services without a license under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and related regulations, plus conspiracy and wire fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether the project’s technical data and related assistance qualified as “defense articles” or “defense services” covered by the AECA and ITAR.
2. Whether the jury could be instructed that AECA “willfulness” requires knowledge that the conduct was unlawful, without requiring knowledge of the technology’s specific regulatory classification.
3. Whether the district court erred by refusing a separate “ignorance of the law” instruction.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, including a count alleging export of an “Agency Proposal” to China.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment and all convictions.
- The court held the data and services tied to the military drone plasma-actuator project were properly treated as ITAR-controlled defense articles/services.
- The court upheld the willfulness instruction requiring proof that Roth intentionally violated a known legal duty and acted with intent to do something he knew was unlawful.
- The court found no error in refusing a separate ignorance-of-the-law instruction because the willfulness instruction already required knowledge of illegality.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on each count, including the “Agency Proposal” export.

## Legal Principles

- Technical data and related assistance connected to a defense project for military application may constitute “defense articles” and “defense services” under the AECA/ITAR, including during research and development stages.
- For AECA prosecutions, “willfulness” is satisfied by proof the defendant knew the conduct was unlawful; the government need not prove the defendant knew the specific Munitions List classification or regulatory details.
- A separate “ignorance of the law” instruction is unnecessary when the jury is instructed that conviction requires finding the defendant knew the conduct was unlawful.
- On sufficiency review, the verdict stands if, viewing the evidence most favorably to the government, a rational jury could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt, including by reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Roth’s AECA/ITAR-related convictions, holding that export-controlled research data for a military drone project fell within the statute and that willfulness required only proof that Roth knew his conduct was unlawful, not proof he understood precise regulatory classifications.


United States v. Roth, 628 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2011)