United States v. DeChristopher, 695 F.3d 1082

DeChristopher entered a BLM oil and gas lease auction in Salt Lake City by posing as a bidder to disrupt the sale.
He bid aggressively, driving up prices and ultimately winning about $1.8 million in leases he could not pay for.
A grand jury charged him with 30 U.S.C. § 195(a)(1) (scheme to circumvent FOOLGRA) and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements).
The district court granted in limine rulings excluding a claimed necessity defense and discovery on selective prosecution; Judge and jury heard extensive testimony including recordings and Agent Love’s interviews.
At trial, the Government proved he signed a bidder registration form certifying good faith and received a bidder paddle.
The district court convicted him on both counts and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Group activity required for Count 1	DeChristopher argues § 195(a)(1) requires multiple parties.	Group activity is required; he acted alone.	No plain error; evidence supported single-actor liability under the statute.
Awareness of leasing provisions required	Knowledge of specific Leasing Reform Act provisions is required.	Knowledge of general circumvention suffices; specific provisions need not be known.	Conviction sustained; knowledge of general circumvention shown by conduct and statements.
Intent to bid in bad faith for Count 2	Defendant knowingly made false statement when signing Bidder Registration Form.	He planned to disrupt initially and only later intended to bid.	Evidence sufficient to show bad-faith intent and falsity.
Constructive amendment of indictment	Instructions did not alter essential elements; no amendment.	Instructions omitted or altered elements of the indictment.	No constructive amendment; instructions were consistent with the charged offenses.
Admission of evidence about illegality of auction/necessity defense	Evidence relevant to the case; probative of defendant’s intent.	Evidence irrelevant and prejudicial; violated Rule 403 and Confrontation issues.	District court did not abuse discretion; evidence irrelevant to elements; necessity defense rejected.

Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1985) (government need not prove knowledge of specific regulations)
United States v. Islam, 418 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2005) (no need to prove knowledge of specific statute; knowledge of facts suffices)
United States v. Sprenger, 625 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir. 2010) (plain-language/statutory-interpretation approach in sufficiency review)
United States v. Farr, 536 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2008) (constructive amendment standard for indictment)
Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1992) (First Amendment considerations at sentencing; relevance of beliefs)
Ron Pair Enters., Inc. v. United States, 489 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (plain meaning when interpreting statutory terms)