United States v. Oceanpro Industries, Ltd.
674 F.3d 323
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Oceanpro Industries, Ltd. (Profish) and two Oceanpro employees, Lydon and Clough, were convicted of purchasing untagged and oversized striped bass in violation of the Lacey Act and of making a false statement to federal investigators.
- The district court ordered $300,000 in restitution to Maryland and Virginia, to be split equally, in addition to fines and prison sentences.
- Oceanpro and Clough challenged venue for the § 1001 false-statement count, arguing it occurred in the District of Columbia, not Maryland where the other counts were tried.
- The government argued venue was proper in Maryland because the false-statement’s materiality affected an investigation in Maryland and the effects were felt there.
- Evidence showed Oceanpro purchased over 213,703 pounds of illegally harvested striped bass from 1995 to 2007, with Lydon involved throughout and Clough from 2001 to 2007; the market value used by the government supported restitution totals.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding venue proper in Maryland and Maryland/Virginia had sufficient interests to be victims for restitution purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue for the § 1001 false-statement charge was proper in Maryland. | Oceanpro and Clough: venue improper since statement made in DC. | Government: venue proper where effects of the material false statement were felt (Maryland). | Venue proper in Maryland. |
| Whether restitution to Maryland and Virginia was authorized under MVRA, VWPA, or as a condition of probation/supervised release. | Defendants contend no 'victim' under MVRA; disputed proprietary interests. | Government/State amicus: VWPA, MVRA, and probation/supervised-release provisions authorize restitution to victims. | Restitution proper under MVRA, VWPA, and as a condition of probation/supervised release. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) (locus delicti; venue depends on nature and location of acts)
- United States v. Bowens, 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (circumstance elements and effects can define venue)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (1999) (two-part test for determining locus delicti)
- United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63 (1984) (jurisdictional language as predicate circumstance)
- United States v. Garcia-Ochoa, 607 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 2010) (materiality and venue considerations in § 1001 context)
- United States v. Ringer, 300 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2002) (materiality and venue connections to the district)
- United States v. Salinas, 373 F.3d 161 (1st Cir. 2004) (materiality-based venue considerations)
- United States v. Bengis, 631 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2011) (proprietary interests; MVRA restitution under state forfeiture context)
- United States v. Batson, 608 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2010) (restitution as condition of probation for victim)
- United States v. Gibbens, 25 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1994) (government entity can be a VWPA victim)