United States v. Kenyon Lyle, Jr.
742 F.3d 434
9th Cir.2014Background
- Lyle was indicted on two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1365(a) for tampering with a consumer product (Fentanyl patches) that affects interstate commerce.
- Indictment alleged opening the box, removing patches, and re-gluing the box, then returning boxes to a secured narcotics cabinet.
- District court denied Lyle’s Rule 12(b)(3)(B) motion to dismiss; court held the charges tracked § 1365(a)’s language on tampering with patches and containers.
- Lyle pled guilty and preserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of the tampering motion.
- Court reviews de novo the denial of dismissal and accepts the indictment’s allegations as true for purposes of whether an offense is stated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'tamper' under §1365(a) requires alteration/adulteration. | Lyle argues tamper means theft plus concealment, not alteration. | Lyle asserts tamper is broader, not limited to alteration. | Indictment should be read to require alteration/adulteration (narrow definition). |
| Whether opening and re-gluing the box constitutes tampering with the container. | Opening alone may not constitute tampering; removal/return could be theft. | Container tampering can be established by altering the container. | Opening and re-gluing the container sufficiently tamper with the container under §1365(a). |
| Whether legislative history supports a narrow tampering definition. | Post-enactment reports suggest container/label alterations were limited. | Legislative history supports broader interpretation of tampering. | Legislative history supports a restrictive interpretation that tampering requires alteration/adulteration. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boren, 278 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2002) (binds to analyze pre-trial dismissal within indictment's four corners)
- United States v. Thompson, 728 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2013) (plain language interpretation with policy considerations)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (rule of lenity applied in statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Garnett, 122 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 1997) (tampsing includes substitution; related adulteration concept)
- United States v. Moyer, 182 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 1999) (tamper definition described as physical adulteration)