United States v. Zhen Zhou Wu
711 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Wu and Wei operated Chitron Electronics, Inc. and Chitron-US, routing US-sourced parts to China; Wu controlled Shenzhen operations, Wei managed the US branch; shipments often occurred without licenses or proper end-user destining; trial evidence showed awareness of export controls and efforts to disguise exports; government charged 34 counts across Munitions List, CCL, conspiracy, SED falsifications, and immigration fraud; district court sentenced Wu to 97 months and Wei to 36 months; on appeal, the court vacated Munitions List counts and remanded for resentencing on remaining counts.
- Wu/Wei argued the Munitions List regime was vague and the jury instructions flawed; the court rejected vagueness but vacated Munitions List convictions for instructional error; the CCL counts and conspiracy issues were analyzed, with some issues remanded or affirmed; Wei's immigration fraud conviction upheld; Wu’s self-representation claim denied; overall remand for resentencing on non-vacated counts.
- There were disputed issues about ex post facto impact of post-export regulatory determinations, the timing of CJ determinations, and whether juries could decide Munitions List applicability rather than relying on State Department determinations.
- The appeal addressed the regulatory framework (AECA, ITAR, EAR, CCL) and the role of CJ determinations, along with due process concerns about vagueness and juries deciding elements historically tied to government designations.
- The court ultimately affirmed most counts, vacated two Munitions List convictions, and remanded for resentencing consistent with its rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Munitions List convictions were void for vagueness | Wu/Wei: vagueness voids charges | Wu/Wei: regulations too vague for fair notice | Not void for vagueness; but convictions vacated for instructional error |
| Whether jury should determine Munitions List applicability rather than post hoc CJ determinations | Government: CJ/State Dept determinations bind after export | Defendants: jury must decide if items fell under Munitions List | Jury must decide element; post hoc determinations cannot substitute for actus reus |
| Ex post facto concerns with CCL/EAR categorizations used at trial | Evidence should show at time of export items fell within CCL/EAR | Ex post facto concerns invalid to verdict | Harmless error for CCL counts; sufficient evidence supported classifications at time of export |
| Sufficiency of evidence for SED and related conspiracy/false statement counts | Sufficient evidence showed false SEDs and conspiracy | Insufficient or misconstrued definitions used | Evidence sufficient; conspiracy/SED convictions stood (subject to other rulings) |
| Whether Wei's immigration fraud conviction stands given alternative theories | One theory supported by evidence; the other flawed | Potentially unconstitutional/inflated basis | Wei's immigration conviction affirmed; vacatur limited to Munitions List counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro, 597 F.3d 423 (1st Cir. 2010) (jury instructions and vagueness analysis guidance)
- United States v. Lachman, 387 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2004) (vagueness and regulatory framing considerations)
- Pulungan v. United States, 569 F.3d 326 (7th Cir. 2009) (CJ determinations and regulatory designations not always binding on juries)
- Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936) (foundational approach to judicial review considerations)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error standard for instructional errors)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (elements vs. facts; jury right to determine critical factors)