Whether the stringent harmless error language from Neder applies to Ruan-based jury instruction error?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450, 454 (2022), this Court held that to convict an authorized person of distributing a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841 the Government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they knowingly and intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner. The Eleventh Circuit applied Ruan to Ms. Akwuba’s case holding that the jury never heard the proper mens rea requirement. But it concluded the Ruan-based error was harmless considering the strength of the Government’s case. Its harmless error analysis did not consider this Court’s instruction from United States v. Neder, 527 U.S. 1, 17 (1999), that “the omitted element [be] uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence.” (emphasis added.) In fact, Ms. Akwuba contested the omitted intent element by presenting evidence that she provided proper medical care and by showing that the Government’s standard of care witnesses based their opinions on incomplete patient records. The question presented here is whether the stringent harmless error language from Neder applies to Ruan-based jury instruction error? i