Did the Eleventh Circuit err in holding that federal jurisdiction is conclusively established whenever an indictment alleges a federal crime?

Question Presented . ' Inabroad opinion that conflicts with other appellate precedents and with the bedrock . constitutional principle of limited federal jurisdiction, the circuit. court held that a federal indictment conclusively establishes federal subject-matter jurisdiction to convict and sentence a defendant: “[I]f an indictment itself alleges a violation of a valid federal statute, the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over that case.” United States v. Yero Grimon, 923 F.3d . , 1302, 1805 (CA11 2019). The published opinion held that federal courts have jurisdiction despite there being no evidence that the crime charged implicated was vequired for the district court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Grimon’s case "was an indictment charging her with a violation of a valid federal law... .” Id. at 1806. This holding is incompatible with the Article ILI principle that, because federal courts have only limited jurisdiction, there is a presumption against its existence and the party invoking that jurisdiction has the burden of proving, not merely alleging, that it exists. | Did the Eleventh Circuit err in holding that federal jurisdiction is conclusively ; established whenever an indictment alleges a federal crime? : .