United States v. Swan , 100 F. App'x 727 ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 4 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 03-5199
v. (N.D. Oklahoma)
CHRISTOPHER E. SWAN, (D.C. No. 03-CR-72-H)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Christopher E. Swan pled guilty to one count of violating the Lacey Act, 16
U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(A), and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a).
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
*
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
He appeals the two-point upward departure he received at sentencing pursuant to
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“USSG”),
§2Q2.1(b)(2)(B) (Nov. 2001) for creating “a significant risk of infestation or
disease transmission potentially harmful to humans” in connection with his
receipt of paddlefish roe from other individuals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Swan made arrangements with Jim Wever for Wever to obtain paddlefish
roe 1 in Oklahoma and deliver it to Swan in Arkansas, for a price of $25 per
pound. Swan admitted that, at the time he made these arrangements with Weaver,
he knew it was illegal under Oklahoma law to take paddlefish roe out of
Oklahoma, and he further admitted that he planned to sell the roe to various
buyers outside of Arkansas.
Following an extensive investigation, Wever was found guilty of poaching
paddlefish roe, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 29, § 6-303.1, which prohibits the
possession of more than fifty pounds of unprocessed paddlefish eggs or five
pounds of processed eggs, as well as the transportation of paddlefish eggs,
1
Paddlefish (Polyodon Spathula) is a species of fish which inhabits lakes,
rivers and streams in the Northern District of Oklahoma and surrounding areas.
Paddlefish eggs are processed and sold as caviar. While it is considered an
endangered species in certain states, the paddlefish population is apparently
making a recovery in Oklahoma.
-2-
processed or unprocessed, outside the state. Swan was subsequently indicted for
violating, and aiding and abetting Wever in violating the Lacey Act, which makes
it illegal “to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in
interstate . . . commerce [] any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or
sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State.” 16 U.S.C.
§ 3372(a)(2)(A). Swan pled guilty.
The probation office recommended in Swan’s presentence report that he
receive a two-point upward departure under USSG §2Q2.1(b)(2)(B) because
Swan’s offense “created a significant risk of infestation or disease transmission
potentially harmful to humans.” Swan objected, arguing that he was “properly
licensed” and was following applicable regulations when he processed the
paddlefish eggs. R. Vol. 2, tab 1.
At sentencing, the government presented testimony from Christopher J.
Hurst, a United States Food and Drug Administration investigator, that paddlefish
roe is an item subject to United States Food and Drug Administration regulations
concerning Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (“HACCP”) plans. 2
He further
2
21 C.F.R. § 123.6 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Hazard analysis. Every processor shall conduct, or have
conducted for it, a hazard analysis to determine whether there are
food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur for each kind
of fish and fishery product processed by that processor and to
(continued...)
-3-
testified that Wever and his wife, Swan’s source for paddlefish roe, were
considered processors of paddlefish roe, and as such would also be subject to
HACCP regulations and required to have an HACCP plan. Hurst then testified
that the Wevers’ failure to have an HACCP plan in effect for their processing of
roe rendered the roe adulterated under the Food and Drug Administration Act, 21
U.S.C. § 342(a)(4). See 21 C.F.R. § 123.6(g). 3
Hurst also testified about the
types of health hazards posed by improperly processed paddlefish roe, including
contamination by botulinum brucella and listeria monocytogenes.
A second witness, Thomas McKay, also testified at Swan’s sentencing
proceeding. McKay was an employee of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service in Edmond, Oklahoma, with responsibility for the northern district of
Oklahoma. He testified that he was the supervising agent in the case against the
Wevers and was familiar with their case. McKay testified that he considered the
Wevers’ roe processing methods “unsanitary,” that “they had no refrigeration
2
(...continued)
identify the preventive measures that the processor can apply to
control those hazards. . . .
(b) The HACCP plan. Every processor shall have and implement a
written HACCP plan whenever a hazard analysis reveals one or more
food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur . . . .
3
21 C.F.R. § 123.6(g) states that “[f]ailure of a processor to have and
implement a HACCP plan that complies with this section whenever a HACCP
plan is necessary . . . shall render the fish or fishery products of that processor
adulterated under [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4)].”
-4-
equipment,” and that the Wevers’ residence “was pretty dirty.” Tr. of Sentencing
Hr’g at 29-30, Appellant’s App. Vol. 1 at 79-80. It is undisputed that the Wevers
did not have an HACCP plan. Swan did, however, have an HACCP plan.
After listening to the above testimony and hearing arguments from counsel
for both sides, the district court found “that the United States has adduced
evidence establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that in fact such a risk
[of infestation or disease] was created under these circumstances, therefore, the
request that the offense level be further adjusted downward is denied.” Id. at 40.
Swan was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of
supervised release, and assessed a fine of $10,000.
Swan argues that the district court erroneously imposed the two–point
enhancement under USSG §2Q2.1(b)(2)(B) because he should not be held
accountable for the Wevers’ failure to have an HACCP plan, nor was there any
evidence that the roe which he had received or which he planned to obtain from
the Wevers was in fact harmful to humans. 4
4
While the count to which Swan pled guilty involved an attempt by the
Wevers to deliver some eighty-five pounds of processed paddlefish eggs and
twenty-six pounds of unprocessed eggs to Swan in Arkansas, which delivery was
foiled by Oklahoma game wardens acting in conjunction with the Arkansas Game
and Fish Department, Swan admitted that he had purchased processed paddlefish
eggs from the Wevers on prior occasions. He was not charged with those.
-5-
DISCUSSION
“We review de novo legal questions regarding the application of the
sentencing guidelines. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error, ‘giving due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to
the facts.’” United States v. Martinez , 342 F.3d 1203, 1205 (10th Cir. 2003)
(quoting United States v. Brown , 314 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir.), cert. denied ,
537 U.S. 1223 (2003)). Furthermore, “[w]e review for clear error a district
court’s factual findings in support of a sentence enhancement.” Id. at 1208; see
18 U.S.C. § 3742(e).
As the government points out, USSG §1B1.3(a)(1)(B) provides that:
specific offense characteristics . . . shall be determined on the basis
of the following:
...
(B) in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity
(a criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise
undertaken by the defendant in concert with others,
whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably
foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance
of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,
that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in
preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid
detection or responsibility for that offense.
USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
-6-
Swan was convicted of violating the Lacey Act and aiding and abetting the
Wevers in violating the Lacey Act, which, in turn, required a violation of
Oklahoma law. Accordingly, the district court properly considered the Wevers’
conduct in processing the roe which they then transported to Swan. Furthermore,
the Wevers’ roe is considered adulterated under applicable federal regulations and
statutes, and, as such, would present a “significant risk of infestation or disease
transmission potentially harmful to humans.” See United States v. Blue Ribbon
Smoked Fish, Inc. , 179 F. Supp. 2d 30, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (“Because the
defendants’ HACCP plans are inadequate and do not comply with the FDA
regulations, the food [defendant] processes pursuant to them is adulterated as a
matter of law, as defined by Section 342(a)(4) of the FDCA.”).
Swan argues that two other cases affirming a two-level enhancement under
§2Q2.1(b)(2) are distinguishable because they both involved a Lacey Act
violation where the state law violated was itself clearly designed to protect the
public health. See United States v. Narte , 197 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 1999);
United States v. Eyoum , 84 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir. 1996). Thus, he argues, the
violations of state laws designed to protect the public health “in and of
themselves were sufficient for purposes of the enhancement.” Appellant’s Br. at
-7-
9. He argues that, by contrast, the Oklahoma law violated in this case is merely
designed to protect paddlefish, not to further any human health safety goal. 5
Swan misperceives the basis for the district court’s enhancement. He was
convicted of violating the Lacey Act and aiding and abetting Wever in violating
that act. As part of that course of conduct, Swan obtained and agreed to obtain
paddlefish roe which was considered adulterated under the Food and Drug Act.
We cannot say that the district court erred in concluding that receipt of
adulterated roe to be sold to others would pose a significant risk of disease
transmission potentially harmful to humans. Furthermore, it is reasonable to read
the Oklahoma law violated in this case, Okla. Stat. tit. 29, § 6-303.1, which
regulates the possession and transportation of paddlefish eggs, as not exclusively
protecting paddlefish and their eggs, but also protecting consumers of those eggs.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the sentence imposed in this case.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
Swan concedes that both the Narte and Eyoum courts held that the
5
government need not prove that the particular food product involved was in fact
harmful or diseased in order for the enhancement to apply.
-8-