United States v. Ronald Dobek
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8231
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Ronald Dobek, a Derco Aerospace engineer, formed two firms to supply canopy seals (cockpit seals) for Venezuelan F-16s after a 2006 U.S. export embargo revoked licenses for munitions to Venezuela.
- FBI searched Dobek’s home and found a $79,000 purchase order; FedEx records and correspondence showed shipments to a Venezuelan Air Force contact and an $87,500 payment to Dobek.
- Dobek certified to a seller that the items were ITAR-controlled and that he would obtain required licenses, and he discussed shipping and concealing exports to Venezuela.
- Indicted for illegal export of munitions (22 U.S.C. § 2778) and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371); convicted by a jury and sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Dobek challenged admission of a co-conspirator’s emails, sufficiency of the evidence, and the district court’s jury instruction defining “willfully.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of co-conspirator emails | Emails are statements in furtherance of the conspiracy and thus admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) | Emails were inadmissible hearsay or not in furtherance of any conspiracy | Admissible—the proof of conspiracy was overwhelming and emails qualified as co-conspirator statements |
| Sufficiency of evidence of illegal export/conspiracy | Evidence (orders, shipments, payments, letters) shows Dobek knowingly exported embargoed defense articles and conspired with Venezuelan officer | Defendant argues lack of proof he knew items were embargoed/munitions-list items | Sufficient—reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dobek willfully violated and conspired to violate the embargo |
| Meaning of "willfully" under 22 U.S.C. § 2778 | Government: willfulness means voluntary intentional violation of known legal duty (knowledge that export of defense articles to Venezuela was illegal) | Defendant: lacked knowledge that specific exported items were classified as defense articles and so lacked willfulness | Court: "willfully" requires knowledge that a license was needed to export the items; jury instruction given was imprecise but error was harmless because evidence of Dobek’s knowledge was overwhelming |
| Harmless-error review for defective jury instruction | Government: instruction accurately stated law (no harmless-error argument made) | Defendant: instruction could convict without proof he knew the items were on munitions list; thus prejudicial error | Court: error was harmless — overwhelming evidence and government argument put knowledge issue to jury; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC, 626 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2010) (civil context: willfulness can be synonymous with recklessness)
- Wassell v. Adams, 865 F.2d 849 (7th Cir. 1989) (discussing civil concept of recklessness as willfulness)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (criminal willfulness often requires knowledge of wrongdoing)
- United States v. Pulungan, 569 F.3d 326 (7th Cir. 2009) (knowledge requirement for criminal willfulness)
- United States v. Muthana, 60 F.3d 1217 (7th Cir. 1995) (willfulness requires knowing violation of law)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless error doctrine for jury instruction errors)
- United States v. Ford, 683 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2012) (application of harmless-error review)
- United States v. Giovannetti, 928 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1991) (harmless-error standards in criminal cases)
- Walberg v. Israel, 766 F.2d 1071 (7th Cir. 1985) (importance of preserving adversary procedure despite overwhelming evidence)