the state offense that Degrate was charged with was a felony. Further, there was no testimony that Appellant knew what the state offense was or whether it was a felony. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence regarding the state crime that Degrate was charged with in order for it to serve as the felony needed for Appellant’s conviction. Next, we turn to the federal offense for, which the marshals were arresting Degrate on the day in question. De-grate was charged with felon in possession of a firearm, which is a felony, and therefore, if the State proved that Appellant knew of the charge, her felony conviction is valid. However, Degrate’s federal indictment was sealed. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(4) states: The magistrate judge to whom an indictment (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). As the rule states, the existence of the
holding over holding that facially valid indictment may not be challenged on the ground that it is based on inadequate evidence holding that a juvenile questioned by an officer over the phone was not in custody holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that locating and gaining custody over a defendant is not the only valid reason for sealing an indictment