United States v. Yuri Izurieta
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3781
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Izurieta and Anneri Izurieta founded Naver Trading Corp., importing dairy products from Central America for US distribution.
- Imports are screened at CBP, FDA, and USDA; conditional release allows possession but not admission until FDA clearance.
- Regulatory framework creates civil liquidated damages for non-compliance, not criminal penalties, under 19 C.F.R. § 141.113(c).
- Counts 2–7 charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 for failure to redeliver/export/destroy with FDA supervision, based on the cited regulation.
- Count 1 charged a conspiracy under § 371 to import goods contrary to law; indictment did not specify the underlying criminal statute.
- The district court convicted on all counts, but the Eleventh Circuit sua sponte examined jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the indictment, ultimately vacating all convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Counts 2–7 allege a crime under § 545? | Government contends regulation can be a 'law' for § 545. | Izurietas argue the regulation is civil/contractual, not criminal law. | Counts 2–7 vacated; regulation not per se criminal under § 545. |
| Does Count 1 properly charge a conspiracy under § 371? | Count 1 potentially bars conspiracy to commit a crime if underlying statute identified. | Indictment largely alleges a conspiracy to commit non-criminal acts; fails to specify the underlying offense. | Count 1 inadequate; indictment failed to set forth a crime; jurisdiction lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Place, 693 F.3d 219 (1st Cir. 2012) (discusses circuit split on what law must be violated for § 545)
- United States v. Alghazouli, 517 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2008) (narrow interpretation of 'law' under § 545; regulation must be criminalized elsewhere)
- United States v. Eaton, 144 U.S. 677 (1892) (requires statutory authority to create criminal offense)
- Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962) (indictment must fully set forth elements without ambiguity)
- Babb v. United States, 252 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1958) (indictment must specify which law was violated under § 545)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (Cotton dicta on indictment vs merits; court treats jurisdictional defect seriously)
- United States v. Seher, 562 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2009) (courts may raise sua sponte jurisdictional issues before mandate)
- United States v. McIntosh, 704 F.3d 894 (11th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes between jurisdictional and technical defects in indictments)
- United States v. Mitchell, 39 F.3d 465 (4th Cir. 1994) (broad view of 'law' under § 545 applying to regulations with force of law)