United States v. Rodebaugh
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15027
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Dennis E. Rodebaugh ran D&S Guide and Outfitters in Colorado and guided out-of-state clients on elk/deer hunts using tree stands.
- Colorado regulations prohibit "baiting" (placing salt/minerals to attract wildlife); the Lacey Act makes interstate sale of wildlife taken in violation of state law a federal crime, including sale of guiding/outfitting services.
- Investigators documented Rodebaugh placing sheep salt around tree stands, obtained receipts and photographs, and he ultimately admitted to baiting during an interview.
- A federal jury convicted Rodebaugh on six Lacey Act counts; the district court sentenced him to 41 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release with a special condition banning hunting/fishing and guiding/outfitting nationwide during release.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction, the Guidelines enhancements (value > $30,000; disease-risk; obstruction/perjury), and most rulings; a divided court addressed the supervised-release occupational restriction (majority affirmed; a judge would vacate/remand for lack of specific findings).
Issues
| Issue | Rodebaugh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of confession (motion to suppress) | Confession involuntary due to sleep deprivation, threats, deceptive circumstances, and court procedure | Interview was noncustodial, agents warned he was free to leave, the statement about property was not coercive or dispositive; overall voluntariness shown | Affirmed: confession voluntary under totality of circumstances |
| Vagueness of Colorado baiting regulations | Regulations vague on face and as applied | Regulations give ordinary persons notice; Rodebaugh knew baiting was illegal | Affirmed: regulations not unconstitutionally vague as applied; facial challenge not considered |
| Sufficiency of evidence for each Lacey Act conviction | Insufficient proof that salt served as lure at specific kills; some counts lack direct evidence | Confession, photographic evidence, witness testimony, and inference as to repeated baiting support each count | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for the convictions |
| Guidelines enhancements (disease risk; value; obstruction/perjury) | Enhancements unsupported: no disease transmission risk; market value miscalculated; perjury not shown | Photographs and wildlife expert testimony show congregation and disease risk; fair-market retail price unavailable so court reasonably estimated value > $30,000; false testimony was willful and material | Affirmed all three enhancements |
| Supervised-release occupational restriction and hunting/fishing bans | Condition is overbroad, lacks required specific findings under U.S.S.G. §5F1.5(b), and may impede livelihood/reentry | District court had discretion; restriction relates to offense and public protection; defendant forfeited or invited review problems | Split panel: majority affirmed (finding forfeiture and that district court acted within discretion); dissent would vacate/remand for specific minimal-restriction findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pettigrew, 468 F.3d 626 (10th Cir. 2006) (totality-of-circumstances voluntariness framework for confessions)
- United States v. Lopez, 437 F.3d 1059 (10th Cir. 2006) (factors relevant to voluntariness analysis)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (vagueness doctrine: notice and arbitrary enforcement concerns)
- Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial vagueness limits where First Amendment not implicated)
- United States v. Butler, 694 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2012) (occupational restriction must be minimally restrictive with specific findings)
- United States v. Griffith, 584 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2009) (relevant conduct may include uncharged or acquitted acts)