United States v. Augustus C. Romain, Jr.

USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 1 of 25 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-14097 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus AUGUSTUS C. ROMAIN, JR., a.k.a. Gazi Kodzo, JESSE NEVEL, a.k.a. Jesse Nevelsky, PENNY JOANNE HESS, OMALI YESHITELA, a.k.a. Joseph Waller, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00259-WFJ-AEP-7 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 2 of 25 2 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether sufficient evi- dence supports convictions for conspiracy to act as foreign agents without notifying the attorney general, whether the convictions vi- olate the First Amendment, and whether the district court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction or should have granted a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. For years, members of the African People’s Socialist Party followed the direction of Al- exander Ionov of the Russian Federation-backed “Anti-Globaliza- tion Movement.” Ionov funded trips for Party leadership to Mos- cow, sponsored multiple Party events, told the Party to publish pro-Russian statements, and appeared on Party media. A grand jury indicted three Party members and one former member for act- ing as foreign agents without notifying the attorney general, see 18 U.S.C. § 951(a), and conspiracy to do the same, id. § 371. After trial, a jury found them guilty of conspiracy. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Omali Yeshitela founded the African People’s Socialist Party in 1972 and still chairs it today. Headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida, the Party “supports the rights of African people through- out the world to be free from colonialism and exploitation.” Penny Hess and Jesse Nevel are Party members, and Augustus Romain was a member until 2018. After he left the Party, Romain formed USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 3 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 3 the Black Hammer Party to prompt “the masses in America to rev- olution.” Aleksandr Ionov, a Russian citizen, directs the Anti-Globali- zation Movement of Russia, which purports to defend “the right of peoples to self-determination and [the] building of the multipolar world.” Ionov is an asset of the Russian Federal Security Service. He regularly communicates with Service officers Yegor Popov and Aleksei Sukhodolov about Movement endeavors. In May 2015, Ionov invited Party members on an “all ex- penses paid” trip to Russia to meet “other activists and establish close ties with Russian society.” Yeshitela accepted the invitation. Before Yeshitela’s trip, Hess told a Movement officer that Yeshitela would “like to meet with an official representative of the Russian government” and “[h]ave [his] own event to speak to students, anti-imperialists and workers about the struggle of African people.” After Yeshitela returned from Russia, Ionov and the Party formed, according to Hess, a “[d]eepening relationship.” They were “in touch almost every day.” In July, Ionov asked Hess whether the Party was interested in organizing events funded by the Movement. Later that month, Ionov donated $500 to the Party as part of a “Reparations Challenge.” And that month, Ionov told Hess that he “need[ed] [her] to make [a] draft of [a] [United Na- tions] petition on [g]enocide of African people in [the] U.S. since the beginning of time.” Ionov explained to Hess that the Move- ment could support the petition only “as cowriters/supporters” be- cause “we’re not exactly black to demand it for ourselves.” Hess USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 4 of 25 4 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 agreed, and Ionov told her to prepare it “ASAP.” Ionov later re- quested it be posted “to the websites of White House and change.org” and that it be published two days later. Hess said she would “make that happen.” The next month, Ionov invited Yeshitela to the Movement’s “Dialogue of Nations,” an “international expert conference” held in Moscow involving discussion of “the right of peoples to self-de- termination.” Yeshitela again agreed to attend, and Ionov paid for his travel expenses. While Yeshitela was in Moscow, Hess emailed him, Ro- main, and Nevel news coverage of the conference. One article in The Guardian, titled “Russia Funds Moscow Conference for US, EU and Ukraine Separatists,” explained that “the National Charity Fund, which was founded as the National Military Fund in 1999 by . . . Vladimir Putin,” funded the event. And after Yeshitela re- turned, he confirmed to Party members that the Movement had Russian government connections: Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia is a solid in- stitution of Russian politic. Some articles said they got 30 percent funding from charity tied to Putin, et cetera, but it is clear that it is instrument of Russian government. This does not disturb us. In January 2016, Ionov pledged $12,000 to the Party for a four-city encampment demonstration against genocide. Hess thanked Ionov for “envisioning such actions,” and the Party held USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 5 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 5 the tour. At a Party debriefing, Yeshitela explained that the Move- ment asked for the tour as “a big mobilization around the genocide question.” But Ionov sent only $7,000 of the promised $12,000. Ye- shitela traced the underpayment back to Ionov “hav[ing] to justify . . . getting resources for this.” Indeed, Movement agents asked Hess to “give [them] links or send a report about the action,” in- cluding, for example, “where the action took place” and “how many people attended.” At the Movement’s request, Party leadership also published pro-Russian statements on Party media. In May 2016, Ionov asked Hess to publish two articles about Russians detained in America. And another Movement agent asked Hess to post a statement sup- porting the Russian Olympic team after some members were banned from the 2016 Olympics. Hess and Yeshitela complied both times. Later, a Movement member asked Yeshitela to record a “video with congratulations to the residents of the Donetsk Peo- ple’s Republic” on the anniversary of their “self-determination.” Yeshitela prepared the video, and Ionov sent it to Popov. On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Ionov sensed that Russia was “losi[ng] the whole information campaign.” So he made several “emergency phone [calls] with some leaders of anti- war organizations” in the United States, including Party members. Ionov “request[ed] [the Party] . . . support Russia in the infor- mation war unleashed by the West,” and asked Yeshitela to “make an official statement on the situation and show support for Russia.” USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 6 of 25 6 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 Yeshitela published YouTube videos discussing “Russia’s defensive war in Ukraine against the global colonial powers.” One video, for example, displayed the promo: “APSP stands with Russia. APSP stands with Putin.” Ionov also appeared on Yeshitela’s YouTube broadcast. Ionov then targeted Meta, Facebook’s parent company, be- cause he believed Meta “allow[ed] calls for violence against Rus- sians.” In March 2022, he asked both Party members and Romain, who by then had founded the Black Hammer Party, to protest out- side Meta buildings. Yeshitela and his team scheduled a protest en- titled “Unfriend Facebook Lies” in Silicon Valley and another demonstration “demanding an end to the censorship of Russia and Africa” in front of Facebook’s San Francisco office. Ionov also di- rected Romain to hold a protest at Meta and sent him banners to print, saying “Stop Meta Segregating Russian People. Stop Russian Segregation. Stop Meta Fascism” to display. Ionov booked flights and hotels for Romain and his associates. And he instructed Ro- main to send “a lot of videos and photos . . . that [he] c[ould] throw in the [Russian] media.” In April 2023, a federal grand jury returned a superseding in- dictment charging Yeshitela, Hess, and Nevel with acting as agents of Russia and its officials without notifying the attorney general. See 18 U.S.C. § 951(a). It also charged Ionov, Popov, Sukhodolov, Yeshitela, Hess, Nevel, and Romain with conspiracy to violate sec- tion 951(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 371 (criminalizing conspiracy “to com- mit any offense against the United States”). The indictment alleged USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 7 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 7 several overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, including the drafting of the United Nations petition, the encampment tour, the publication of the articles, Ionov’s reports on the Party’s and Ro- main’s action to his Service handlers, and the protests at Meta. Ionov, Popov, and Sukhodolov remain at large. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that section 951, as applied against them, prohibited “polit- ical speech and . . . advocat[ing] dissenting views” in violation of the First Amendment. A magistrate judge recommended the dis- trict court deny their motion. He reasoned that “[t]o the extent that [s]ection 951 incidentally burdens speech, it is content-neutral be- cause it serves a purpose unrelated to the content of expression,” and that section 951 satisfied intermediate scrutiny because it served the government’s interest in “knowing the identity of those acting on behalf of a foreign government within the United States” without sweeping too broadly. The district court adopted the rec- ommendation and denied the motion. The defendants also moved to exclude communications be- tween Ionov, Popov, and Sukhodolov on hearsay grounds. The dis- trict court denied the motion. It ruled that the communications were admissible as co-conspirator statements. See FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2)(E). At trial, the prosecution called Bureau Special Agent Iry Drupp, the case agent assigned to investigate the relationship be- tween the Party and Ionov. Using communications extracted from the Party members’ iCloud accounts, Drupp testified about the USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 8 of 25 8 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 Party’s introduction to Ionov, Yeshitela’s trips to Russia, the draft- ing of the UN petition, the planning of the encampment tour, and Ionov’s payments to the Party. Bureau Special Agent Anna Myers, a “native Russian speaker” who reviewed data from Ionov’s iCloud account, testified that Ionov received a “[c]ertificate of merit” from the Russian Federal Security Service for “rendering [the Service] assistance.” And using their chat communications, she explained that Ionov reported to Popov and Sukhodolov about his work with Party members. Myers also outlined evidence that Popov supplied Ionov the money Ionov sent to the Party. Another special agent, Kelly Bowen, explained that when the Department of Justice posted notice of the indictment on its website, Ionov told Popov to “[t]rash the phones.” On direct examination, the prosecution asked Bowen about notes from a Party meeting held to discuss Movement proposals. One section of the minutes explained that the Party members con- templated creating a website: Website documenting what the cops do [to] Africans everywhere. Features should include ability of any- one throughout the U.S. to post this on our site. Pic- ture, names, addresses about the cops. Need the design. The Party members’ defense team played several clips of the meet- ing on cross-examination. On redirect, the prosecution asked Bowen to explain dox- ing. She said that “[d]oxing is when someone puts personal infor- mation about another individual online . . . like their address, name USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 9 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 9 and address, something like that.” The prosecution then asked her whether “in that meeting” the Party members “discuss[ed] a plan to work on a doxing website with the Russians.” She said yes. After the prosecution played the relevant portion, it asked Bowen, “So when Yeshitela is referring to support to build this doxing website, whose support is he referring to?” The defense objected that it did not “see any reference to doxing.” The prosecution then reframed its question, “[W]hen . . . Yeshitela says that . . . they have support to build a website to publish the personal information of police of- ficers, judges, and prosecutors, whose support is he referring to?” Bowen responded that Yeshitela was “referring to [Movement] support.” The defendants moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied. The defendants then moved to admit sev- eral exhibits suggesting that the Party was anti-war and pro-Russia even before its contact with the Movement. At the charge conference, the defense proposed “re- mind[ing] the jury that they have to find the elements of the [sec- tion] 951 violation to find the conspiracy.” The Party members also asked for a “limiting instruction” that evidence of Romain’s actions after Romain’s separation from the Party should not be considered against them. The district court denied both requested instruc- tions. The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to violate section 951 but not guilty of violating section 951. The district USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 10 of 25 10 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 court sentenced Romain to 60 months’ probation and each of the Party members to 36 months’ probation. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review de novo “whether the application of [a] statute . . . was constitutional.” United States v. Corrigan, 144 F.3d 763, 768 n.4 (11th Cir. 1998). We also review de novo the sufficiency of the evi- dence. United States v. Jimenez, 972 F.3d 1183, 1190 (11th Cir. 2020). Although the parties dispute whether the Party members pre- served the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, we elect to review that issue de novo because the standard of review is not dispositive. See United States v. Al Jaberi, 97 F.4th 1310, 1322 (11th Cir. 2024). We review the “legal correctness of a jury instruction” de novo, United States v. Prather, 205 F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000), but the “re- fusal to give a requested jury instruction” for abuse of discretion, United States v. Gumbs, 964 F.3d 1340, 1347 (11th Cir. 2020). And we review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Keegan, 161 F.4th 1334, 1338 (11th Cir. 2025). III. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion into four parts. First, we explain that sections 951 and 371 are constitutional as applied to the de- fendants. Next, we explain that the government offered sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy convictions. Third, we explain that the district court did not err by denying the requested jury in- structions. Finally, we explain that the prosecution did not commit misconduct. USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 11 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 11 A. The Convictions Do Not Violate the First Amendment. The defendants argue that the indictment “directly tar- get[ed] lawful political speech” in violation of the First Amend- ment. We disagree. Neither section 951 nor section 371, as applied, violates the defendants’ right to free speech. To address why the defendants could be convicted of the conspiracy offense, we explain why section 951—the violation of which was the object of the conspiracy—passes constitutional mus- ter. We apply “First Amendment scrutiny in cases involving gov- ernmental regulation of conduct that has an expressive element.” TikTok Inc. v. Garland, 145 S. Ct. 57, 65 (2025) (citation modified). That rule from United States v. O’Brien requires a “sufficiently im- portant governmental interest” to regulate a “course of conduct” involving both “speech and nonspeech elements.” 391 U.S. 367, 376–77 (1968) (citation modified). Conduct is “expressive” and im- plicates “speech” when accompanied by “an intent to convey a par- ticularized message” likely to “be understood by those” who view it. Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.3d 1235, 1240 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation modified). The indictment necessarily implicated speech. The indict- ment alleged that the defendants acted and conspired to act at Ionov’s direction through several expressive and speech acts, in- cluding “author[ing] and publish[ing] articles,” “drafting reports,” organizing the encampment tour, “hosting virtual conferences” on political and social issues, and “mak[ing] public statements in sup- port of the Russian Federation.” So we must next determine USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 12 of 25 12 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 whether the charged offenses are content neutral so that we can decide what level of judicial scrutiny applies. See Scott v. City of Day- tona Beach, No. 24-12662, slip op. at 26 (11th Cir. June 25, 2026). Where section 951 and section 371 burden expressive con- duct and speech, they do so on a content-neutral basis. A regulation of speech or expressive conduct is content neutral “if the justifica- tion for the regulation is unrelated to the suppression of free ex- pression,” Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 11 F.4th 1266, 1292 (11th Cir. 2021) (Food Not Bombs II), and it does not “target[] speech based on its communicative content,” Scott, slip op. at 29 (citation modified); see also Ward v. Rock Against Rac- ism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“The principal inquiry in determining content neutrality . . . is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.”). Section 951 is content neutral because it applies equally to all acts taken under the direction or control of a foreign govern- ment without regard to the “content of the message” an agent spreads. Food Not Bombs II, 11 F.4th at 1292; cf. TikTok, 145 S. Ct. at 67 (holding prohibition on TikTok content neutral because Con- gress enacted it “due to a foreign adversary’s control over the plat- form,” without “target[ing] particular speech” or “regulat[ing] speech based on its function or purpose”). Section 951 regulates conduct and speech regardless of which government directs it or what a foreign government directs. Because section 951 is content neutral, we “subject [it] to an intermediate level of scrutiny.” TikTok, 145 S. Ct. at 67 (citation USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 13 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 13 modified). Under intermediate scrutiny, “we will sustain a content- neutral law if it advances important governmental interests unre- lated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden sub- stantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.” Id. (citation modified). Section 951 satisfies intermediate scrutiny. “[T]he Govern- ment has an interest in knowing the identity of those acting on be- half of a foreign government within the United States, whether the action is legal or not.” United States v. Duran, 596 F.3d 1283, 1295 (11th Cir. 2010). “That rationale is decidedly content agnostic” be- cause it “neither references the content of speech [of agents] nor reflects disagreement with the message . . . [they] convey[].” Tik- Tok, 145 S. Ct. at 68. And by requiring agents only to notify the at- torney general before acting, section 951 advances that interest as narrowly as possible. See 18 U.S.C. § 951; 28 C.F.R. § 73.3 (laying out notification requirements). Indeed, after notifying the attorney general about his status, an agent may engage in any speech or ex- pressive conduct on any topic. The defendants argue that we should apply strict scrutiny because Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), treats content- neutral laws as “content-based when used by the government to target speech.” But Reed reaffirms only that “facially content neu- tral” regulations “will be considered content-based” when they “cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regu- USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 14 of 25 14 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 lated speech” or “were adopted by the government because of dis- agreement with the message the speech conveys.” Id. at 164 (cita- tion modified). Under that rule, section 951 is content neutral. Neither De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), nor Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), requires us to apply strict scrutiny. In De Jonge, the Supreme Court vacated a conviction under Oregon law for conducting an assembly of “any group which t[aught] or advocate[d] the doctrine of criminal syndicalism.” 299 U.S. at 356 n.1. The defendant presided at a Communist Party meeting “at which nothing unlawful was done or advocated.” Id. at 357, 360– 62. The Court held that the law swept too broadly because “peace- able assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime.” Id. at 365. And Cohen sustained an as-applied challenge to a law prohibit- ing “maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct” where the defend- ant was convicted for “wearing a jacket bearing the words ‘Fuck the Draft.’” 403 U.S. at 16, 26 (citation modified). The Court ap- plied heightened scrutiny because the conviction “rest[ed] solely upon speech,” not “upon any separately identifiable conduct . . . which, on its face, does not necessarily convey any message” or “arguably could be regulated without effectively repressing [his] ability to express himself.” Id. at 18 (citation modified) (declining to apply the rule from O’Brien). Contrary to the defendants’ arguments, De Jonge did not es- tablish a rule that a law violates the First Amendment whenever it burdens “otherwise lawful” meetings or speech. If that were the USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 15 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 15 case, every content-neutral regulation or time, place, and manner restriction would be unlawful. But see, e.g., Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. at 803. Instead, De Jonge ruled that “the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are them- selves offensive to some of their hearers.” Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218, 244 (2017) (plurality opinion) (citation modified); see also Holder v. Humanitarian L. Project, 561 U.S. 1, 39 (2010) (explaining that under De Jonge, states may not “criminalize[] the mere fact of [persons] associating with” groups (emphasis added)). And sec- tion 951 does not burden speech “merely because” the government objects to its content. Matal, 582 U.S. at 244 (citation modified). Moreover, unlike the law in Cohen, section 951 also targets non-expressive conduct. Although an act of omission, failure to no- tify the attorney general is an essential element of section 951. That element is “separately identifiable” from the defendants’ speech and does not inherently convey any message. Cohen, 403 U.S. at 18. The notification requirement neither formally nor functionally re- pressed the Party’s ability to express its political views. See id.; cf. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 480 (1987) (holding that registration requirement of foreign “political propaganda” placed “no burden on protected expression” because it did “not prohibit, edit, or re- strain [its] distribution”). Section 951 and the conspiracy statute are constitutional as applied. B. Sufficient Evidence Supports the Conspiracy Convictions. The Party members and Romain argue that insufficient evi- dence supports their convictions. “The evidence is sufficient if a USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 16 of 25 16 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 reasonable jury could find that the evidence established the defend- ant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jimenez, 972 F.3d at 1190. We “view the record in the light most favorable to the govern- ment.” Id. We divide our discussion into three parts. First, we explain that sufficient evidence supports the convictions. Second, we ex- plain that the prosecution was not required to prove that the de- fendants knew about the notification requirement. Finally, we con- clude that the prosecution did not rely on inadmissible hearsay. 1. The Government Proved an Unlawful Conspiracy. To prove a conspiracy, the government must present evi- dence of “an agreement among two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective,” “knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement,” and “an overt act by a conspirator in furtherance of the agreement.” Id. at 1190–91 (citation modified). At trial, the gov- ernment sought to prove that the defendants’ “unlawful objective” was the violation of section 951. “To violate [section] 951, . . . a per- son must act,” “the action must be taken at the direction of or un- der the control of a foreign government” or foreign official, and “the person must fail to notify the Attorney General before taking such action.” Duran, 596 F.3d at 1291; see 18 U.S.C. § 951(d) (defin- ing “agent of a foreign government” to mean “an individual who agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official”). Sufficient evidence supports the convictions. The defend- ants concede that they entered a voluntary “agreement” with each USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 17 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 17 other and the Russians. Indeed, Yeshitela explained during Party meetings that the “Party developed a relationship with forces in Russia” and entered the relationship as “allies.” Moreover, the de- fendants’ agreement aimed to violate section 951. The conspirators committed several overt acts to advance their objective. Yeshitela knew that the Movement was an “instru- ment of Russian government”—a fact he shared with the others. And Party members consistently obliged Ionov’s “needs” and “re- quests,” which allowed a reasonable jury to find that they agreed to be subject to his direction. Toward the beginning of their “[d]eepening relationship,” Ionov told Hess he “need[ed] [her]” to draft the United Nations petition, and he later told her to prepare it “ASAP.” Ionov “asked [the Party] for a big mobilization . . . around the genocide question” and “envision[ed]” the encamp- ment tour as part of the mobilization. The Party members knew that the Russian government sponsored the encampment because Ionov told Yeshitela he “need[ed] . . . details” from the tour to “jus- tify . . . getting resources” for it. The Party members also agreed to Ionov’s requests to post statements supporting the Russian Olym- pic team, to record a video of congratulations for the “Donetsk People’s Republic”, to use social media to support Russia during the Ukraine invasion, and to stage two protests outside of Meta. And none of the defendants notified the attorney general of those activities. The defendants contend that the government offered, at most, proof that they were “willing to do” what Ionov asked them, USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 18 of 25 18 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 which falls short of an agency relationship. And they point to evi- dence that their preexisting views aligned with Ionov’s, making them only allies, not agents. But we cannot credit the defendants’ view of the evidence, even if it is permissible. See Jimenez, 972 F.3d at 1190. The jury could have reasonably found that the defendants subjected themselves to Ionov’s guidance by carrying out his plans. See Direction, WEBSTER’S SECOND NEW INT’L DICTIONARY 738 (1959) (“guidance”); Direction, WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY 640 (1993) (“guidance or supervision of action”). The defendants might have a sounder argument if section 951(d) targeted only acts taken subject to a foreign principal’s “control.” See United States v. Rafiekian, 991 F.3d 529, 540–41 (4th Cir. 2021) (suggesting that “control” under section 951 “mirror[s] an employer’s control over the workings of an employee”). But to give “direction” and “con- trol” independent effect, we interpret the former term to connote a lesser degree of constraint than the latter. ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS § 26, 174 (2012) (explaining that under the surplusage canon, “[i]f possible, every word and every provision is to be given effect”); see also United States v. Ullah, 173 F.4th 399, 441–43 (2d Cir. 2026) (Menashi, J., dissenting) (giving “direction” the ordinary meaning of “guidance or supervision” to allow it independent effect from “control”). It is no surprise that the Party members were happy to let Ionov direct them. As the government explains, “members of a USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 19 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 19 conspiracy almost always seek to benefit in ways separate from the conspiracy’s goals.” Indeed, the Party’s shared ideology with Ionov established its members’ motive to join the conspiracy and act un- der his direction. 2. Section 951 Does Not Require Proof of Knowledge of Its Notification Requirement. The defendants argue that we must vacate their convictions because the government offered no evidence that they “had knowledge of [section] 951’s registration requirement.” Precedent forecloses that argument. In United States v. Campa, we held that “section 951 does not require proof that the defendant knew of the requirement to register.” 529 F.3d 980, 999 (11th Cir. 2008). We explained that if “no specific intent element is apparent on the face of the statute, the crime is one of general intent,” and “[a] defend- ant need not intend to violate the law to commit a general intent crime.” Id. (citation modified). And in Duran, we held that a conspir- acy to violate section 951 does not require proof that any defendant was on “notice of the registration requirement.” 596 F.3d at 1296. Section 371 “does not impose its [willfulness] scienter requirement upon the general intent offense that is the object of the conspiracy.” Id. (citing United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686–87 (1975)). The defendants argue that the intervening decisions in Re- haif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), and Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022), abrogated our holdings in Campa and Duran. In Rehaif, the Supreme Court interpreted section 922(g), which in- cludes a generally applicable “scienter provision.” 139 S. Ct. at USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 20 of 25 20 Opinion of the Court 24-14097 2195. The Court concluded that this provision “appl[ied] to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime.” Id. at 2196 (citation modified). Similarly, in Ruan, the Court held that the “‘knowingly or intentionally’ mens rea” requirement in a drug distribution stat- ute “applie[d] to the [statute’s] ‘except as authorized’ clause.” 142 S. Ct. at 2377, 2382. Neither decision abrogates our precedent. See United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887, 893 (11th Cir. 2025) (holding abrogation requires the “demol[ition] and eviscerat[ion]” of a precedent’s “fun- damental props” (citation modified)). Campa ruled that section 951 is a general intent crime because it lacks a “heightened mens rea” requirement, and it did not except proof of general intent from any element. 529 F.3d at 999. And neither decision addresses sec- tion 371, much less overrules Feola, which we applied in Duran. See Feola, 420 U.S. at 687 (“[Section 371] offers no textual support for the proposition that to be guilty of conspiracy a defendant in effect must have known that his conduct violated federal law.”). 3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Admitting Text Conversations Between Ionov and Others Working for the Service. The defendants’ argument that the district court erred by admitting chat conversations between Ionov and Service officers, which they say was the “only evidence of a connection to the Rus- sian government,” fails. It ignores the evidence that the Party members knew, after Yeshitela’s Moscow trip, that the Movement USCA11 Case: 24-14097 Document: 114-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 21 of 25 24-14097 Opinion of the Court 21 was an “instrument of Russian government.” And the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the chat conversations. Statements that would otherwise be hearsay are admissible against a party when “made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2)(E). Under this rule, the government must establish by a preponder- ance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed, the conspiracy in- cluded the declarant and the defendant against whom the state- ment is offered, and the declarant made the