United States v. Mark Henry
888 F.3d 589
2d Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Mark Henry ran an export business in Queens and purchased U.S.-made "ablative materials" and microwave amplifiers that are listed as defense articles on the U.S. Munitions List (USML).
- Henry ordered materials from U.S. suppliers (Krayden, Amplifier Research), repeatedly provided false end-user addresses and created misleading shipping documents to conceal intended exports to Taiwan and China without obtaining required State or Commerce Department licenses.
- Suppliers warned Henry that licenses were required; Amplifier reported concerns to law enforcement and Henry was arrested before shipping certain items to China.
- Henry testified he did not know a license was required, sometimes claimed his father handled communications, and used multiple aliases when ordering; his father corroborated parts of that story.
- At trial Henry initially sought to waive a Mandarin interpreter but the district court required a court-appointed interpreter throughout trial (with a standby interpreter available while Henry testified in English).
- A jury convicted Henry on two AECA counts and acquitted him on an IEEPA count; district court sentenced him to 78 months. Henry appealed on five grounds addressed below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality / nondelegation and vagueness of AECA | Government: AECA validly delegates authority to President/State to list defense articles; USML and regulations provide sufficient guidance | Henry: AECA unconstitutionally delegates legislative power and is unconstitutionally vague given the complexity/length of USML | AECA is constitutional; statute supplies an intelligible principle and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Henry |
| Jury instruction on "willfulness" | Govt: Bryan permits proving willfulness by showing knowledge that conduct is unlawful, not awareness of specific statute/list | Henry: Jury should have been instructed he must know why conduct was illegal (i.e., that items are on the USML) | Instruction correct: willfulness requires knowledge that conduct was unlawful, not specific awareness of the AECA or USML; heightened tax-style rule inapplicable |
| Jury instruction on "conscious avoidance" | Govt: Charge appropriate where defendant claims lack of specific knowledge and evidence supports deliberate ignorance | Henry: Conscious-avoidance charge could reduce mens rea to gross negligence/recklessness | Charge appropriate and correctly limited: jury told it may infer knowledge from awareness of a high probability and deliberate avoidance, but not mere negligence |
| Right to waive court-appointed interpreter (Sixth Amendment & Court Interpreters Act) | Govt: Waiver not absolute; judge may require interpreter to ensure fair trial and accurate record | Henry: Absolute right to waive interpreter; district court violated his rights by requiring use of a court interpreter | Waiver is qualified, not absolute; district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a court-appointed Mandarin interpreter and permitting a compromise during testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dhafir, 461 F.3d 211 (2d Cir.) (upholding IEEPA delegation; analogous nondelegation analysis)
- United States v. Bryan, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (willfulness requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful, not knowledge of specific statute)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (narrow rule for highly technical statutes—tax context)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (scienter in complex tax statutes)
- United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir.) (court may require certified interpreter when necessary for fair trial)
- United States v. Huang, 960 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir.) (court must analyze validity of waiver before denying defendant's waiver of certified interpreter)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (nondelegation doctrine and intelligible principle)
- United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (standards for conscious avoidance jury charge)