United States v. Place
693 F.3d 219
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Place convicted on nine counts for illegally trafficking sperm whale teeth and narwhal tusks under CITES implemented via the ESA and related regulations.
- He challenges the district court’s failure to give lesser‑included misdemeanor Lacey Act instructions and argues the smuggling counts punish conduct regulated rather than proscribed by statute.
- CITES requires permits for international trade; the ESA implements CITES domestically and regulates exports/imports with permits and commercial-use limits; Place allegedly knew he was circumventing these requirements."
- Evidence includes emails showing awareness of permit requirements, attempts to disguise shipments, eBay shutdown notices, and trial testimony.
- Trial court declined to provide lesser‑included instructions; jurors convicted on counts 3–9; Place appeals challenging those convictions and the related statutory interpretation issue.
- Appellate court affirms all convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lesser‑included instruction on Lacey Act | Place should have been given lesser‑included instructions. | Evidence showed Place knowingly violated Lacey Act; lesser offenses not warranted. | No error; no entitlement to lesser‑included instruction. |
| Scope of 'law' in the smuggling statute | Regulations implementing CITES are not 'law' for § 545. | Regulations can be 'law' and criminalize regulatory violations. | Regulations fall within 'law'; convictions sustained. |
| Preservation/waiver of the instruction issue | Issue preserved despite timing concerns. | Waiver or forfeiture applies. | Even on preservation or plain-error review, outcome the same. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boidi, 568 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for lesser‑included offenses, including when knowledge is contested)
- United States v. Flores, 968 F.2d 1366 (1st Cir. 1992) (framework for when lesser‑included offenses may be charged)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1979) ('authorized by law' includes regulations unless legislative intent is clear)
- United States v. Alghazouli, 517 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2008) (whether 'law' includes regulations for smuggling statute)
- United States v. Mitchell, 39 F.3d 465 (4th Cir. 1994) (discusses scope of 'law' in smuggling context)