United States v. Zhi Yong Guo
634 F.3d 1119
9th Cir.2011Background
- Guo was convicted of knowingly and willfully conspiring to export, and attempting to export, ten export-controlled thermal imaging cameras without a license under 50 U.S.C. § 1705.
- Export controls are administered through the Export Administration Regulations, requiring licenses for certain technologies and identifying the items and destinations subject to control.
- Guo, a Chinese engineer, sought U.S.-made thermal imaging cameras and coordinated with Tai Wei Chao, a U.S. citizen, to procure them for export to China without licenses.
- Chao arranged shipments to California; Guo paid a $900 commission and the cameras were moved toward China, triggering regulatory scrutiny.
- FLIR Systems’ compliance staff flagged the first shipment; Department of Commerce agents tracked subsequent activity leading to investigation and arrest at LAX with Guo and Chao.
- Chao pled guilty and cooperated; Guo challenged the vagueness of § 1705 on appeal, which the Ninth Circuit rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1705 is void for vagueness given the regulatory scheme | United States contends the statute, read with regulations, provides notice and enforceable boundaries. | Guo contends the complex regulatory framework renders the statute too vague to guide conduct and enforcement. | Not vague; read with regulations, it provides notice and principled enforcement. |
| Role of scienter in curing vagueness under § 1705(c) | Knowledge of license necessity and intent to export without a license establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Complexity of regulation alone could still render the statute vague regardless of intent. | Scienter requirement mitigates vagueness and satisfies due process. |
| Whether reading the statute with the Executive Order and Commerce Control List/Chart is permissible for notice | Integrated reading provides clear guidance to what constitutes prohibited export without a license. | The multi-source regime could be hard to understand and apply. | Reading together these sources affords adequate notice and enforcement guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jae Gab Kim, 449 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2006) (vagueness review; knowledge of licensing requirement mitigates notice concerns)
- United States v. Purdy, 264 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2001) (de novo vagueness review; regulatory schemes considered)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (due process and notice in vagueness analysis)
- United States v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 523 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1975) (complex regulatory schemes can be navigated for notice)
- Quinn v. United States, 401 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2005) (ignorance of the law remains a defense concern; regulatory notices discussed)