# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 18 90

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Aus ti n DeC os te r, al so kn own as J ack

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Nati on al Ass oc ia ti on of M an uf act ur ers ; Ca to Ins ti tu te ; Wash in gt on Lega l

Fo un da ti on ; Ch am

be r of Co m m erce of t he Uni te d S ta te s; Ph arm aceu ti cal Res earc h

an d M an uf

act ur ers of Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el la nt (s

)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 18 91

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Pet er DeCo st er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

N at ion al A sso ci at ion of Ma nuf act ur ers ; Cat o In st it ut e; W as hi ng to n Leg al Fo un da ti on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el la nt (s

)

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ft. Do dg e

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 7, 2 01 6

Fil ed : J ul y

6, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BEAM, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Aus ti n "Ja ck " DeCo st er an d P et er DeCo st er b ot h pl ed gu il ty, as "re sp on si bl e

co rp or at e of

f i c e r s " o f Qua li ty Egg

, LLC, to m is de m ean or vi ol at io ns of 21 U.S.C.

§ 33 1( a) fo r in tro du ci ng eg gs th at ha d be en ad u l t e rat ed wit h sa lm on el la en te rit id is

in to in te rs ta te co m

m erce

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Ja ck an d Pet er to th ree m on th s 1

im pr is on m en t. The DeCo st ers ap pe al

, arg ui ng th at th e i r p r i s on se nt en ces an d 21

U.S.C. § 33 3( a)(1 ) are un co ns ti tu ti on al

, an d cl ai m in g in th e a l t e rn at iv e th at th ei r

pr is on sen te nc es were p ro ced ur al ly and su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . W e aff

irm.

The Hon or ab le Mar k W

. Ben ne tt

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-I.

J ack DeCo st er own ed Qua li ty Egg

, LLC, an Io wa eg g pr od uc ti on co m p a n y.

Ja ck 's so n Pete r DeCo st er se rv ed as th e co m pa ny's ch ie f op erat in g offi cer. Qua li ty
Egg op erat ed si x farm si te s wit h 73 ba rn s whi ch we r e fil le d wit h fiv e m il li on eg g

la y in g he ns

. It al so ha d 24 ba rn s whi ch were fil le d wit h y ou ng ch ic ke ns th at ha d no t

y et be gu n to la y eg gs

. Add it io na ll y , t he co m pa ny o wne d se ve ral pr oc e s s i ng pl an ts

whe re eg gs were cl ean ed , pac ke d, an d s hi pp ed

.

Ja ck al so own ed an d op erat ed se ve ral eg g pr od uc ti on co m pa ni es in Mai ne , an d

Pet er work ed at th os e faci li ti es

. In 20 08

, sa lm on el la en te rit id is ("s al m on el la ") tes ts

co nd uc te d at th e Mai ne faci li ti e s c a m e ba ck po si ti ve

. The DeCo st ers su ccee de d in

el im in at in g sa lm on el la fro m th ei r Mai ne faci li ti es by fo ll owi ng th e reco m m en da ti on s

of hi re d c o n s u lt an ts

, in cl ud in g po ul try di se as e sp eci al is t Dr. Ch arl es Hof acre an d

ro de nt co nt ro l ex pe rt Dr. M ax cy Nol an

.

P e r i o d i cal ly th e DeCo st ers al so te st ed th e Io wa he ns an d faci li ti es fo r

sa lm on el la

. So m e of th es e te st s ca me b a c k po si ti ve in 20 06

, an d th e po si ti ve te st

res ul ts in crea se d in freq ue nc y th ro ug h th e fal l of 20 10

. Unt il th e USDA ad op te d it s

ne w e gg sa fet y ru le in Ju ly 2 01 0, Qua li ty Egg was n o t le ga ll y ob li ga te d to co nd uc t

sa lm on el la te st s of it s eg gs aft er rece iv in g po si ti ve en vi ro nm en ta l te st res ul ts

. Nev e r t h el es s, Qua li ty Egg te st ed it s eg gs in Apr il 20 09 aft er be in g no ti fie d th at a

Mi nn es ot a res ta ur an t pu rch as er h a d h a d a sa lm on el la ou tb reak

. The sa m pl e of it s

eg gs tes te d n eg at iv e fo r sa lm on el la

.

Oth er th an co nd uc ti ng th e si ng le eg g t e s t i n Apr il 20 09 , Qu al it y Egg di d no t

te st or di ve rt eg gs fro m th e m ark et be fo re Ju ly 20 10 de sp it e rece iv i n g mu l ti pl e

po si ti ve en vi ro nm en ta l an d he n te st res ul ts

. In 20 09 th e DeCo st ers hi red Dr. Hof acre

an d Dr. Nol an to co ns ul t o n t h e c om pa ny's Io wa op erat io ns

. The co ns ul ta nt s

reco m m en de d im

pl em en ti ng th e sa m e m eas ur es in Io wa as ha d be en us ed in Mai ne

.

-3

-Alt ho ug h th e DeCo st ers cl ai m th ey ad op te d al l of th e reco m m en da ti on s, t h e

pr ecau ti on s im

pl em en te d by Qua li ty Egg fai le d to erad ic at e sa lm on el la

. The Cen te rs

fo r Dis eas e Co nt ro l an d Prev en ti o n e s t i mat ed th at ab ou t 56 ,00 0 Am eri can s fel l il l

wit h sa lm on el lo si s in 20 10 af t e r c on su m in g co nt am in at ed eg gs

. In Aug us t 20 10

, fed eral an d st at e of

fic ia ls de te rm in ed th at th e sa lm on el la ou tb reak ha d ori gi na te d at

Qua li ty Egg 's faci li ti es

. In res po ns e Qua li ty Egg reca ll ed eg gs th at ha d be en sh ip pe d

fro m fiv e o f it s s ix Iowa farm

si te s b et ween May and Aug us t 2 01 0.

The FDA in sp ect ed th e Qua li ty Egg op erat io ns in Io w a f r o m Aug us t 12 –3 0,

20 10 . In ve st ig at or s di sc ov ered li ve an d de ad ro de nt s an d fro gs in th e la y in g area s,

feed area s, co nv ey er be lt s, an d ou ts id e th e bu il di ng s. The y al so fo un d ho le s in th e

wall s an d ba se bo ard s of th e feed an d la y in g bu il di ng s. The in ve st ig at or s di sc ov ered

th a t s om e ro de nt tra ps were br ok en , an d ot he rs ha d de ad ro de nt s in th em

. In on e

bu il di ng ne ar th e la y in g he ns , m an ur e was fo un d pi le d to th e raft ers ; it ha d pu sh ed a

sc reen ou t of th e do or whi ch al lo wed ro de nt s in to th e b u i ld in g. In ve st ig at or s al so

ob se rv ed em

pl oyees no t weari ng or ch an gi ng pr ot ect iv e cl ot hi ng an d no t cl ean in g or

sa ni ti zi ng eq ui pm en t.

Th e FDA co nc lu de d th at Qua li ty Egg ha d fai le d to co m pl y wit h it s wri t t e n pl an s fo r bi os ecu rit y an d sa lm on el la pr ev en ti on

. One go ve rn m en t ex pe rt rep or te d

th at "t he re were m in im al to no r e c o r d s f r o m th e po ul try [] ba rn s to in di cat e th at

co m pa ny pe rs on ne l [h ad ] im

pl em en te d th e writ te n pl an s [to el im in at e sa lm on el la ]. "

The ag en cy al so di sc ov ered th at th e co m pa ny's eg gs te st ed po si ti ve fo r sa lm on el la

at a rat e of co nt am in at io n ap pr ox im at el y 39 ti m es hi gh er th an th e cu rren t na t io na l

rat e, an d th at th e co nt a m in at io n ha d sp read th ro ug ho ut al l of th e Qua li ty Egg

faci li ti es

. In Oc to be r 20 10 th e FDA in st ru ct ed Qua li ty Egg to eu th an iz e ev ery he n,

rem ov e th e m an ur e, rep ai r it s faci li ti es , an d di si nf ect it s b arn s t o p rev en t t he ris k o f

an ot he r ou tb reak

.

-4

-The go ve rn m en t th en be ga n a cri m in al in ve st ig at io n of th e co m pa ny's fo od

sa fet y pr act ic es an d ul ti m at el y fil ed a cri m in al in fo rm at io n ag ai ns t Qua li ty Egg an d

bo th of th e DeCo st ers . Th e in ve st ig at io n re ve al ed th at Qua li ty Egg pr ev io us ly h ad

fal si fie d reco rd s ab ou t fo od sa fet y m eas ur es an d ha d li ed to au di to rs fo r se ve ral y ears

ab ou t p es t co nt ro l m eas ur es an d s an it at io n p ract ic es . Alth ou gh it s fo od saf et y pl an

st at ed t h at Qua li ty Egg pe rfo rm ed flo ck te st in g to id en ti fy an d co nt ro l sa lm on el la

,

no flo ck te st in g was ev er d o n e

. Q u al it y Egg em pl oyees ha d al so br ib ed a USDA

in sp ect or in 20 10 to rel eas e eg gs fo r sa le whi ch ha d be en ret ai ne d or "re d ta gg ed " fo r

fai li ng to m eet m in im

um qu al it y gr ad e st an da rd s. Qua li ty Egg al so m is le d st at e

reg ul at or s an d ret ai l cu st om ers by ch an gi ng th e pa ck in g da te s of it s eg gs an d se ll in g

th e m is br an de d eg gs in to in te rs ta te co m m erce

. The pa rti es ad dit ion al ly sti pul ated th at

on e Qua li ty Egg em

pl oyee was pr ep ared to te st ify at tri al th at Ja ck DeCo st er ha d on ce

rep rimand ed hi m be cau se he ha d n o t mo v e d a pa ll et of eg gs in ti m e to av oi d

in sp ect io n by th e USDA. The in ve st ig at io n al so rev eal ed th at in 20 08 Pet er DeCo st er

ha d m ad e i n a ccu rat e st at em en ts to W al m art ab ou t Qua li ty Egg 's fo od sa fet y an d

sa ni ta ti on pra ct ic es

.

Qua li ty Egg pl ed gu il ty to : (1 ) a fel on y vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 20 1( b) (1 ) fo r

br ib in g a USDA in sp ect o r , ( 2 ) a fel on y vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 33 1( a) fo r

in tro du ci ng m is br an de d eg gs in to in te rs ta te co m m erce wit h i nt en t to de frau d an d

m is le ad

, an d (3 ) a m is de m ean or vi ol at io n of 21 U.S

. C

. § 33 1( a) fo r in tro du ci ng

ad ul te rat ed eg gs in to in te rs ta te co m m erce

. Ja ck an d Pet er each p l e d gu il ty to

m is de m ean or vi ol at io ns of 21 U.S.C. § 33 1( a) as res po ns ib le co rp or at e of fic ers un de r

th e Fo o d D r u g & Co sm et ic Act (FDCA). In th ei r pl ea ag reem en ts

, th e DeCo st ers

st at ed th at th ey ha d no t k n own th at th e eg gs were co nt am in at ed at th e ti m e of

sh ip m en t, bu t sti pu la te d t ha t t he y were in po si ti on s of suf fic ie nt au th or it y to de te ct

,

pr ev en t, an d co rrec t th e sa le of co nt am in at ed eg gs ha d t h e y kn own ab ou t th e

co nt am in at io n. The pa rti es al so st ip ul at ed th at th e DeCo st ers ' ad vi so ry gu id el in e

ran ge was 0 to 6 m on th s im pr is on m en t, an d bo th de fen da nt s ag reed to be se nt en ced

ba se d o n fa ct s t he sen te nc in g ju dg e fo un d b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.

-5

-Befo re se nt en ci ng , th e DeCo st ers arg ue d th at se nt en ces of in carc erat io n wou ld

be un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se th ey ha d no t kn own th at th e eg gs were con ta m in at ed at

th e ti m e th ey were sh ip pe d. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io ns , im po se d $1 00 ,00 0

fin es on bo th Ja ck an d P e t e r D e Co st er an d se nt en ced th em to th ree m on th s

im pr is on m en t. See 21 U.S.C. § 33 3( a)(1 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at an y on e who vi ol at es

se ct io n 3 31 "s ha ll be im

pr is on ed fo r no t m or e th an on e y ear or fin ed no t m or e th an
$1 ,00 0, or bo th "); 18 U.S.C. § 35 71 (b )(5 ) (s e t ti ng m ax im um fin e of $1 00 ,00 0 fo r

cl as s A m is de m ean or no t res u l t i n g in de at h)

. The co ur t de te rm in ed th at al th ou gh

no th in g in th e reco rd in di cat ed th at Pet er an d Ja ck ha d act ua l kn owl ed ge th at th e eg gs

th ey so ld were in fect ed wit h sa lm on el la

, th e reco rd de m on st rat ed th at th ei r sa fet y an d

sa ni ta ti on pr oc ed ur es were "eg reg io us ," th at th ey ig no red th e po si ti ve sa lm on el la

e n v i r o n men t al te st res ul ts be fo re Ju ly 20 10 by no t te st in g th ei r eg gs , an d th at th e y

kn ew th at th ei r em

pl oyees ha d de cei ve d an d br ib ed USDA i ns pe ct or s. The di st ric t

co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th e reco rd su pp or te d th e in fere nc e th at th e DeCo st ers ha d

"cr eat ed a wor k en vi ro nm en t whe re em pl oyees no t on ly fel t co m fo rta bl e di sr eg ard in g

reg ul at io ns an d br ib i n g U S D A of fic ia ls , b ut m ay ha ve ev en fel t pr es su re to do so ."

The di st ric t co ur t acco rd in gl y co nc lu de d th at th is was no t a cas e in vo lv in g "a m ere

un aware co rp or at e ex ecu ti ve ."

The DeCo st ers ap pe al

, arg ui ng th a t t he ir pr is on se nt en ces un de r 21 U.S.C.

§ 33 3( a)(1 ) are un c o n s t i tu ti on al un de r th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se an d th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t. In th e al te rn at iv e th ey cl ai m th at th ei r se nt en ces were pr oc ed ur al ly an d

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

II.

Und er th e FDCA resp on si bl e co rp or at e of fic er co nc ep t, in di vi du al s who "b y

reas on of [ th ei r] pos it io n i n t he co rp or at io n [h av e th e] res po ns ib il it y an d aut ho rit y "

to ta ke ne ces sa ry m eas ur es to pr ev en t or rem ed y vi ol at io ns of th e FDCA and fai l to

do so , m ay be he ld cri m in al ly li ab le as "re sp on si bl e co rp or at e ag en ts ," reg ard le ss of

-6

-whe th er th ey were aware of or in te nd ed to cau se th e vi ol at io n. Uni te d St at es v. Park

,

42 1 U.S. 65 8, 67 3– 74 (1 97 5)

. The FDCA "p un is he s ne gl ect whe re th e la w req ui res

care , or in act io n whe re it im po se s a du ty" be cau se acco rd in g to Co ng res s, th e "p ub li c

in te res t in th e pu rit y of it s fo od is so gr eat as to warra nt th e im po si ti on of th e hi gh es t

st an da rd of care on di st rib ut or s." Id

. a t 6 7 1 ( i n te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. A

co rp o r a te of

fic er m ay av oi d li ab il it y un de r th is do ct rin e by sh owi ng th at he was "p owe rle ss to pr ev en t or co rrec t th e vi ol at io n." Id

. at 67 3 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

.

Th e D e C os te rs arg ue th at th ei r pr is on se nt en ces vi ol at e du e pr oc es s an d th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. The go ve rn m en t con te nd s th at be cau se th e DeCo st ers rai se an Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m , th ei r cas e is go ve rn ed ex cl us iv el y by th at am en dm en t. See

Alb rig ht v. Oli ve r, 51 0 U.S. 26 6, 27 3 (1 99 4)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d th at
"[w]her e a pa rti cu la r Am en dm en t pr ov id es an ex pl ic it te xt ua l so ur ce of co ns ti tu ti on al

pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t a pa rti cu la r so rt of go ve rn m en t be ha vi or , th at Am en dm en t, no t th e

m or e ge ne ral iz ed no ti on of su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s, m us t be th e gu id e fo r an al y zi ng

th es e cl ai m s." Id. (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The DeCo st ers rai se two se pa rat e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s. The y fir st arg ue th at

th ei r se nt en ces are no t pr op or ti on a l to th ei r cri m es as req ui red by th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t. See Grah am v. Fl or id a, 56 0 U.S. 4 8, 6 0 (2 01 0) . They al so arg ue th at

th e pe na lt y of in carc erat io n of an y le ng th fo r th is m is de m ean or of fen se wou ld vi ol at e

su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s. See Zad vydas v. Dav is

, 53 3 U.S. 67 8, 69 0 (2 00 1) ; se e al so

Uni te d St at es v. Green ba um , 13 8 F.2 d 43 7, 43 8 (3 d Ci r. 19 43 ) (co nc lu di ng th at th ree

m on th pr is on se nt en ce for co rp or at e of fic er's FDCA m is de m ean or vi ol at io n di d no t

vi ol at e d ue pro ces s) ; Un it ed Sta te s v . Hig gi ns , 20 11 W L 60 88 57 6, at *1 0 (E.D. Pa.

Dec. 7 , 20 11 ) (s am e fo r ni ne m on th pri so n s en te nc e).

W e rev ie w de no vo a su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s cl a i m. Uni te d St at es v.

Cl em m on s, 46 1 F.3 d 10 57

, 10 61 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 06 ). The DeCo st ers arg ue th at th ei r

-7

-pr is on se nt en ces are un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se th ey di d no t pe rs on al ly co m m it

wro ng fu l act s. The y an al og iz e th is cas e to ot he rs whe re co ur ts ha ve de te rm in ed th at

du e pr oc es s is vi ol at ed whe n pr is on te rm s are im po se d fo r vi cari ou s li ab il it y cri m es

. See Lad y J. Lin ge ri e , In c. v. Ci ty of Ja ck so nv il le

, 17 6 F.3 d 13 58

, 13 67 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 99 ); St at e v. Gum in ga , 39 5 N.W .2d 34 4, 34 6 ( M i n n

. 1 9 8 6) ; Dav is v. Ci ty of

Peac ht ree Ci ty, 30 4 S.E.2d 70 1, 70 3– 0 4 ( G a

. 19 83 ); Co m m on weal th v. Koc zwara , 15 5 A.2 d 8 25 , 83 0 (P a. 19 59 ). The El ev en th Cir cu it ex pl ai ne d in Lady J. th at "d ue

pr oc es s pr oh ib it s th e st at e fro m im pr is on in g a pe rs on wit ho ut pr oo f of so m e fo rm of

pe rs on al bl am ewo rth in es s m or e th an a 'res po ns ib le rel at io n.'" 17 6 F .3d at 1 36 7.

Offi cer li ab il it y un de r th e F D C A

, ho wev er, is no t eq ui va le nt to vi cari ou s

li ab il it y

. See Park

, 42 1 U.S. at 67 4– 75

. Und er vi cari ou s li ab il it y , a su pe rv is or y pa rty

is he ld l i a b l e " f

o r th e act io na bl e co nd uc t of a su bo rd in at e

. . . ba se d on th e

rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e two pa rti es ." Li ab il it y , Bl ack 's Law Dict io na ry (1 0t h ed

. 20 14 ). Und er the FDCA, in co nt ras t, a co rp or at e of fic er is he ld acco un ta bl e no t fo r

th e act s or o mi s s i o n s of ot he rs , bu t rat he r fo r hi s own fai lu re to pr ev en t or rem ed y

"t he co nd it io ns whi ch ga ve ris e to th e ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m ." S e e Park

, 42 1 U.S. at

67 5. Thu s, "s om e m eas ur e of bl am ewo rth in es s" is "i m po rt[ ed ]" d i r e c tl y to th e

co rp or at e o ffi cer. Id . at 6 73

.

Here, as own er of Qua li ty Egg

, Ja ck de ci de d whi ch ba rn s were su bjec t to

sa lmo n e ll a en vi ro nm en ta l te st in g, an d as ch ie f op erat in g of fic er, Pet er co or di na te d

m an y of th e co m

pa ny's sa lm on el la pr ev en ti on an d ro de nt co nt ro l effo rts

. Neit he r of

th e DeCo st ers cl ai m to ha ve be en "p owe rle ss " to pr ev en t Qua li ty Egg fro m vi ol at in g

th e FDCA. See id

. Des pi te th ei r fam il ia rit y wit h th e co nd it io ns in th e Io wa faci li ti es , th ey fai le d t o t ak e su ffi ci en t m eas ur es to im pr ov e th em . On th is reco rd

, th e di st ric t

co ur t reas on ab ly fo un d th at "t he de fen da nt s 'kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own ,' of th e ris ks

po se d by th e in sa ni ta ry co nd it io ns at Qua li ty Egg in Io wa, 'kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve

kn own ' th at ad di ti on al te st in g ne ed ed to be pe rfo rm ed be fo re th e su sp ect ed sh el l eg gs

were di st rib ut ed to co ns um ers , an d 'kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own ' of [] pr op er rem ed ia l

-8

-an d pr ev en ta ti ve mea s u res to red uc e th e pr es en ce of [s al m on el la ]. " The FDCA

"p un is he s ne gl ect whe re th e la w req ui res care ." Id

. at 67 1 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. W e co nc lu de th at th e reco rd he re sh ows th at th e DeCo st ers are l ia bl e fo r

ne gl ig en tl y fai li ng to pr ev en t th e sa lm on el la ou tb reak

. Se e i d

. a t 67 8– 79 (St ewart

, J., di ss en ti ng ) (rea di ng m ajor it y op in io n in Park as es ta bl is hi ng a ne gl ig en ce

st an da rd ).

The DeCo st ers arg ue th at th ei r pr is on sen te nc es als o v io la te th e Due Pro ces s

Cl au se be cau se th ey di d no t kn ow th at th e eg gs th e co m pa ny di st rib ut ed ha d

sa lm on el la

. W e ha ve ex pl ai n e d th at "t he im po si ti on of se ve re pe na lt ie s, es pe ci al ly

a fel on y co nv ic ti on , for th e co m

m is si on of a m or al ly i nn oc en t act m ay vi ol at e" d ue

p r o c e s s

. See Uni te d St at es v. Eno ch s, 85 7 F.2 d 49 1, 49 4 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 )

. Th e

el im in at io n of a m en s rea req ui rem en t do es no t vi ol at e th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se fo r a

pu bl ic welf

are of fen se whe re th e pe na lt y is "re la ti ve ly sm al l," th e co nv ic ti on do es no t

gr av el y da m ag e th e de fen d a n t's rep ut at io n, an d co ng res si on al in te nt su pp or ts th e

im po si ti on of th e pe n a l t y. S e e St ap le s v. Uni te d St at es , 51 1 U.S. 60 0, 61 7 (1 99 4)
(ci ti ng Mo ris se tt e v. Unit ed St at es , 34 2 U.S. 24 6, 25 6 (19 52 )); Hol dr id ge v. Un it ed

St at es , 28 2 F .2d 30 2, 3 09 –1 0 (8 th Cir . 19 60 ).

The th ree m on th pr is on se nt en ces th e DeCo st ers rece iv ed were rel at iv el y sh or t.

See St ap le s, 51 1 U.S. at 61 7. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly de te rm in ed th at ev en a m ax im um

st at ut or y pe na lt y of on e y ear im pr is on m en t fo r a m is de m ean or of fen se is "re la ti ve ly

sm al l" an d do es no t vi ol at e du e pr oc es s. See Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Fl um , 51 8 F.2 d 39

, 43 –4 5 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 75 ) (en ba nc ), cert

. de ni ed

, 42 3 U.S. 10 18 (1 97 5) ; 21 U.S.C.

§ 33 3( a)(1 ); cf. U n i t e d S t a t es v. W ul ff, 75 8 F.2 d 11 21

, 11 25 (6 th Ci r. 19 85 )
(co nc lu di ng th at a fel on y co nv ic ti on whi ch carr ie d a pe na lt y of a max im um of two

y ears im pr is on m en t was no t re la ti ve ly sm al l).

The DeCo st ers ' m is de m ean or co nv ic ti on s al so do no t gr av el y da m a g e th ei r

rep ut at io ns

. In Fl um , we ex pl ai n e d t ha t a m is de m ean or co nv ic ti on un de r a fed eral

-9

-l a w whi ch pr ov id ed fo r a m ax im um im pr is on m en t of on e y ear di d no t gr a v e l y

"b es m irc h" th e de fen da n t's rep ut at io n be cau se it di d no t br an d hi m as a "fe lo n or

s u b je c t hi m to an y bu rd en be y on d th e se nt en ce im po se d." See 51 8 F.2 d at 4 3 ; c f

. W ul ff, 75 8 F.2 d at 11 25 (fel on y co nv ic ti on wou ld irr ep arab ly da m ag e a de fen da nt 's

rep ut at io n be cau se a fel on lo se s hi s ci vi l rig ht s)

. Si m il arl y in th is cas e, th e DeCo st ers

wil l no t be br an de d as fel on s, an d th e reco rd do es no t id en ti fy a n y ad di ti on al ci vi l

sa nc ti on s th ey m ay be su bjec t to be y on d th ei r se nt en ces

. Fi na ll y , th e el im in at io n of

cri m in al in te nt un de r 21 U.S.C. § 33 3( a) did no t vi ol at e du e pr oc es s bec au se , as th e

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d, "Co ng res s ha s se en fit to en fo rce th e acco un ta bi li ty of

res po ns ib le co rp or at e ag en ts de al in g wit h pr od uc ts whi ch m ay affe ct th e he al th of

co ns um ers by pen al san ct io ns cas t i n ri go ro us ter m s." Park , 42 1 U.S. at 67 3.

The di ss en t arg ue s th at we m us t t reat th e FDCA, 21 U.S.C. §§ 33 1( a),

33 3( a)( 1 )

, a s r e qu iri ng a de fen da nt to kn ow he vi ol at ed th e st at ut e in or de r to be

su bjec t to it s pe na lt ie s be cau se th e st at ut e ha s "n o ex pr es s co ng res si on al st at em en t"

to om it a m en s rea re q u i r e men t. W e rel y ho wev er "o n th e na tu re of th e st at ut e an d

th e pa rti cu la r ch arac te r of t h e i te m s reg ul at ed to de te rm in e whe th er co ng res si on al

si le nc e co nc ern in g th e m en ta l el em en t of th e of fen se sh ou ld be in te rp ret ed as

di sp en si ng wit h co nv en ti on al m en s rea req ui rem en ts ." St ap le s, 51 1 U.S. at 60 7. The

FDCA reg ul at es se rv ic es an d pr od uc ts whi ch affe ct th e he al th an d well be in g of th e

pu bl ic

. Fo r th is reas on , Co ng res s ha s no t req ui red "awa ren es s of so m e wro ng do in g"

in or de r to ho ld res po ns ib le c or po rat e ag en ts acco un ta bl e fo r vi ol at in g th e st at ut e.

Park

, 42 1 U.S. at 67 2– 73 (in te rn al qu ot a t i o n m ark s om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h th e

"re qu ire m en ts of fo res ig ht an d vi gi la nc e im po se d on res po ns ib le co rp or at e ag en ts [in

21 U.S.C. § 33 1( a)] are be y on d qu es ti on de m an di ng , an d pe rh ap s on ero us , [] th ey are

no m or e st rin ge nt " th an req ui red to pr ot ect th e un kn owi n g p u bl ic fro m co ns um in g

ha zard ou s fo od

, su ch as sa lm o n e l l a in fect ed eg gs

. Id

. at 67 2. The la ng ua ge in th e

FDCA an d Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t in te rp ret in g th e st at ut e su pp or t th e co nc lu si on

th at de fen da nt s ar e no t req ui red to ha ve kn own th at th ey vi ol at ed th e FDCA to be

su bjec t t o t he st at ut or y

pe na lt ie s.

-1 0-As th e Thi rd Ci rcu i t e x pl ai ne d in Uni te d St at es v. Green ba um , "[t ]he

co ns ti tu ti on al req ui rem en t of du e pr oc es s is no t vi ol at ed m erel y be cau se m en s rea is

no t a req ui red el em en t of a pr es cri be d cri m e." 13 8 F.2 d 43 7, 43 8 (3 d Ci r. 19 43 ). In

Green ba um , t he co ur t affi rm ed a co rp or at e p r e s i d e nt 's th ree m on th pr is on se nt en ce

fo r in tro du ci ng ad ul te rat e d eg gs in to in te rs ta te co m m erce in vi ol at io n of th e sa m e

st at ut e at is su e in th is cas e. Id

. at 43 9. The Green ba um co ur t e x pl ai ne d th at "t he

le gi sl at iv e in te nt to di sp en se wit h m en s rea as an el em en t of [a m is de m ean or FDCA]

of fen se ha s a jus ti fia bl e ba si s" be cau se su ch of fen se s "ar e cap ab le of in fli c ti ng

wid es pr ead in

jury, an d [] th e req ui rem en t of pr oo f of th e of fen de r's gu il ty kn owl ed ge

an d wro ng fu l in te nt wou ld ren de r en fo rcem en t of t h e p r o h ib it io n di ffi cu lt if no t

im po ss ib le ." Id

. at 43 8. Fo r th e sa m e reas on s, we co nc lu de th at th e DeCo st ers '

se nt en ces do no t vi ol at e th e Du e P r o c e s s Cl au se ev en th ou gh m en s rea was no t an

el em en t o f th ei r m is de m ean or off en se s.

The DeCo st ers al so cl ai m th at th ei r se nt en ces vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.

W e rev ie w th is is su e de no vo

. Uni te d Stat es v. Ma rti n, 6 77 F.3d 81 8, 8 21 (8t h C ir.

20 12 ). The Eig ht h Am en dm en t ba rs pr is on se nt en ces th at are "g ro ss ly

di sp ro po rti on at e fo r a pa rti cu la r de fen da nt 's cri m e." Grah am v. Fl or id a, 56 0 U.S. 48

, 60 (2 01 0)

. To de te rm in e whe th er a sp eci fic se nt en ce is gr os sl y di sp ro po rti on at e we weig h "t he ha rs hn es s of th e pe na lt y " ag ai ns t "t he gr av it y of th e of fen se ," an d we al so

co ns id er th e "h arm cau se d or th reat en ed to th e vi ct im or to so ci et y , an d th e cu lp ab il it y

an d de gr ee of th e de fen da nt 's in vo lv em en t

. " Uni te d St at es v. Lee, 62 5 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 37 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

On th is reco rd

, t h e DeCo st ers ' th ree m on th pr is on se nt en ces are no t gr os sl y

d is pr op or ti on at e to th e gr av it y of th ei r m is de m ean or of fen se s. W he n de fin in g t h e

st at ut or y pe na lt ie s in th e FDCA, Co ng res s reco gn iz ed th e im po rta nc e of pl aci ng th e

bu rd en o n c o r p or at e of

fic ers to pr ot ect co ns um ers "wh o are who ll y he lp le ss " fro m

pu rch as in g ad ul te rat ed fo od pr od uc ts whi ch co ul d m ak e th em il l. See Uni te d St at es

v. Dot te rwei ch

, 32 0 U.S. 27 7, 28 5 ( 1 94 3)

. "[T]he pu bl ic ha s a rig ht to ex pe ct " a

-1 1-he ig ht en ed de gr ee of fo res ig ht an d care fro m "t ho se w ho vol unt ari ly as su m e po si ti on s

of au th or it y in bu si ne ss en te rp ris es who se se rv ic es an d pr od uc ts affe ct th e he al th an d

well -b ei ng of t h e p ub li c th at su pp or ts th em ." Park

, 42 1 U.S. at 67 2. The 20 10

sa lm on el la ou tb reak m ay ha ve affe ct ed up to 56 ,00 0 v i c t im s, so m e of who m were

ho sp it al iz ed or su ffer ed lo ng te rm in juri es

. Fo r on e ex am

pl e, a ch il d ho sp it al iz ed in

an in t e n s i v e c a re un it fo r ei gh t da y s was sa ve d by an ti bi ot ic s whi ch da m ag ed hi s

te et h, ca us in g t he m

to be cap pe d i n s ta in le ss st eel

.

W e co nc lu de th is is no t "t he rare cas e in whi ch a th res ho ld co m pa ris on of th e

cri m e co mm i t t e d a n d th e se nt en ce im po se d le ad s to an in fere nc e of gr os s

di sp ro po rti on al it y ." Uni te d St at es v. Sp ire s, 62 8 F.3 d 10 49

, 10 54 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 11 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Mo reo ve r, th e DeCo st ers ' th ree m on t h p r i s o n

se nt en ces fel l at th e lo w en d of the pr es cri be d st at ut or y ran ge of 21 U.S.C. § 33 3( a)
(o ne y ear m ax im

um ), an d we ha ve "n ev er he ld a se nt en ce wit hi n th e st at ut or y ran ge

to vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t," Uni t e d St at es v. Van ho rn 74 0 F.3 d 11 66

, 11 70
(8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). W e d e c l i n e t o d o s o he re as well

. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t

co ur t's sen te nc es in th is cas e d o n ot vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.

III.

Fi na ll y , th e DeCo st ers arg ue th at th ei r se nt en ces are pr oc ed ur al ly an d

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas o n a b l e

. "When an al y zi ng a se nt en ce fo r pr oc ed ur al erro r, we

rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t's in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e gu id el in es de no vo an d

it s fact ua l fin di ng s

. . . fo r cl ear erro r." Uni te d St at es v. Cal la way , 76 2 F.3 d 75 4, 75 9
(8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n. Id . at 7 60

.

The DeCo st ers cl ai m th at th ei r se nt en ces are pr o c e d ur al ly un reas on ab le

be cau se th e co ur t rel ie d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s

. See Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er,

57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Fi rs t, th e DeCo st ers arg ue th at th e co ur t erre d by

-1 2-st at in g t ha t t he y ha d " ig no re[d ]" th e p os it iv e en vi ro nm en ta l s al m on el la tes ts be fo re

20 10

. Dur in g se nt en ci ng a di st ric t co ur t m ay rel y on fact s it fin ds by a pr ep on de ran ce

of th e reco rd ev id en ce. See Uni t e d S t a t e s v

. Nas si f, 92 1 F.2 d 16 8, 17 0 (8 th Ci r.

19 90 ). Here, th e co ur t fo un d t h a t w h i le th e DeCo st ers cl ean ed th ei r ba rn s an d

ad m in is te red a se co nd sa lm on el la va cci ne to th ei r ch ic ke ns in 20 10

, th ey di d no t te st

or di ve rt eg gs un ti l Ju ly 20 10 ev en th ou gh th ey ha d reas on to su sp ect th ei r

co nt am in at io n. Th e co ur t di d no t cl earl y err by de te rm in in g th at th e act io ns or

in act io ns of th e DeCo s t e r s w a s in su ffi ci en t an d bl am ewo rth y un de r th es e

ci rcu m st an ces

. See Park

, 42 1 U.S. at 67 2 (ex pl ai ni ng th at co rp or at e of fic ers m ay be

he ld li ab le fo r fai li ng to "d ev is e wh a t e v er m eas ur es are ne ces sa ry to en su re

co m pl ia nc e wit h t he [FDCA]").

The DeCo st ers al so arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by fin d i n g t h at th ey

"fa il ed to fo ll ow" th e m et ho ds th ey ha d pr ev io us ly us ed to el im in at e sa lm on el la in

th ei r Mai ne faci li ti es

. The y co nc ed e ho wev er th at th ey pr ev io us ly st ip ul at ed th at no

ex pe rt ha d a ba si s to te st ify ab ou t whe th er Qua li ty Egg "fu ll y " an d " e f f e c ti ve ly"

im pl em en te d al l of th e sp eci al is t reco m m en da ti on s in Io wa. The y al so ag ree wit h th e

pr ob at io n of

fic e de te rm in at io n th at th ey ha d no t effe ct iv el y im pl em en te d th e m et ho ds

us ed at th ei r Mai ne faci li ti es

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in in te rp ret in g th e

ev id en ce to sh ow th at th e DeCo st ers ha d fai le d t o f o l lo w al l of th e ex pe rt

reco m m en da ti on s.

The DeCo st ers al so arg ue th at th ei r se nt en ces are su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

be cau se th e di s t r i c t co ur t ga ve su bs ta nt ia l weig ht to pr io r of fen se s an d reg ul at or y

vi ol at io ns co m

m it te d by Qua li ty Egg em pl oyees ev en th ou gh th e DeCo st ers ha d no t

sa nc ti on ed th os e act io ns an d th e vi ol at io ns were un rel at ed to th e sa lm on el la ou tbre ak.

The se nt en ces he re are pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le be cau se t h e y a r e wit hi n th e

st ip ul at ed gu i d e l i n e ran ge of 0 to 6 m on th s im pr is on m en t fo r each de fen da nt

. See

Cal la way , 76 2 F.3 d at 76 0. Fu rth erm or e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by co ns id eri ng th e Qua li ty Egg em pl oyees' pa tt ern of d e c e i v i n g th e FDA. A

-1 3-se nt en ci ng co ur t m ay co ns id er "'an y in fo rm at io n co nc e rn in g th e ba ck gr ou nd

,

ch arac te r, an d co nd uc t of [a] de fen da nt .'" See Uni te d St at es v. Ro ge rs , 42 3 F.3 d 82 3,

82 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng USSG § 1B 1.4 ). Here, th e c o u r t co ns id ered su ch

ba ck gr ou nd in fo rm at io n an d fo un d th at th e DeCo st e r s ha d "cr eat ed a wor k

en vi ro nm en t whe re em

pl oyees no t on ly fel t co m fo rta bl e di sr eg ard in g reg ul at io ns an d

br ib in g USDA of

fic ia ls

, bu t m ay ha ve fel t pr es su re to do so ." In fact

, on e em pl oyee

al le ge d th at Ja ck DeCo st er ha d on ce rep rimand ed hi m be cau se he ha d no t m ov e d a

pa ll et of eg gs in ti m e to av oi d in sp ect io n by th e USDA. Pet er DeCo st erwas si m il arl y

pe rs on al ly i m

pl ic at ed in th e co m

pa ny's vi ol at io ns be ca u se of in accu rat e st at em en ts

he m ad e to W al m art ab ou t Qu al it y Egg 's fo od saf

et y an d s an it at io n p ract ic es

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered rel ev an t pas t con du ct

an d i m po se d s ub st an ti ve ly reaso na bl e se nt en ces on th e DeCo st ers

.

IV.

Fo r th es e rea so ns th e jud gm en ts of t he di st ric t co ur t ar e aff irmed.

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge , con cu rri ng

.

The DeCo st ers do no t ch al le ng e ei th er th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of § 33 1( a) or th e

s u f f i c ie nc y of th e fact ua l ba si s fo r th ei r pl eas

. Rat he r, th ey cl ai m th at du e pr oc es s

co nc ern s pr ev en t th em fro m be in g se nt en ced to pr is on fo r a cri m e in vo lv in g no m en s

rea on th ei r pa rt be cau se it is ba se d so le ly on th ei r po si ti on s as res po ns ib le co rp or at e

of fic ers

— i.e.

, vi cari ou s li ab il it y

. I ag ree wit h th e di ss en t th at im pr is on m en t ba se d on

vi cari ou s lia bi li ty wou ld rai se se rio us du e pr oc es s con cern s. Howev er, becau se th e

di st ric t co ur t fo un d th e DeCo st ers ne gl ig en t, th ey were no t he ld vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r

vi ol at io ns co m

m it te d by ot he rs , an d th is cas e th us do es no t im pl ic at e th es e co nc ern s.

I th eref or e co nc ur in th e jud gm en t an d joi n Ju dg e Mu rp hy’ s op in io n to th e ex te nt th at

-1 4-it reco gn iz es th at th e DeCo st ers were ne gl ig en t. I writ e se pa rat el y in or de r to m ak e 1

c l e a r my vi ew th at Par k req ui res a fin di ng of ne gl ig en ce in or de r to co nv ic t a

res po ns ib le co rp or at e o ffi cer u nd er § 33 1.

T he DeCo st ers pl ead ed gu il ty to m is de m ean or vi ol at io ns of 21 U.S.C. § 331( a)

, whi ch pro vi de s:

The fol lo win g a ct s an d t he cau si ng th ereo f are pro hi bi te d:

(a) The in tro du ct io n or de l i v e r y fo r in tro du ct io n in to in te rs ta te

co m m erce of a ny foo d . . . th at is ad ul te rat ed or m is br an de d.

A m is de m ean or vi ol at io n o f § 3 31 is pu ni sh ab le by u p to on e y ear’s im pr is on m en t.
§ 33 3( a)(1 ). On it s face

, § 33 1( a) ap pe ars to im po se st ric t li ab il it y on de fen da nt s who

in tro du c e or cau se to be in tro du ced in to in te rs ta te co m m erce an y ad ul te rat ed fo od

. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Ca rl

s o n , 8 10 F.3 d 54 4, 55 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (ap pl y in g st ric t

li ab il it y st an da rd to de fen da nt co nv ic te d of m is de m ean or vi ol at io n of § 33 1 whe re

de fen da nt pe rs on al ly pa rti ci pa te d in vi ol at io ns ). Not hi ng in th e st at ut e cl earl y st at es

th at a co rp or at e of

fic er can be im

pr is on ed fo r act s co m

m it te d so le ly by a su bo rd in at e.

Howev er, th e Par k Co ur t read § 33 1 to ho ld c o r p o r a te of fic ers li ab le fo r “ cau si ng ”

vi ol at io ns co m

m it te d by th ei r su bo rd in at es

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Par k

, 42 1 U.S. 65 8,

67 3- 74

, 67 8- 79 (1 97 5)

. The qu es ti on , th en , is whe th er § 33 1 ap pl ie s v i c a r i ou s 2

I al so joi n Ju dg e Mu rp hy’ s op in io n in rej e c t i n g th e DeCo st ers ’ Eig ht h 1

Am en dm en t ch al le ng e an d th ei r cl ai m s th at th e s e nt en ces are pr oc ed ur al ly an d

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

The di ss en t at te m

pt s to di st in gu is h Par k fro m th is cas e by po in ti ng ou t th at th e 2

de fen da nt in Par k was co n v i c te d un de r § 33 1( k)

, no t § 33 1( a). Yet th e th eo ry unde rl y in g Par k pr os ecu ti on s— th at th e ex ecu tiv e “ ca use d” the vio la tio n by br ea ch ing

th e du ty of care to en su re co m pl ia nc e wit h th e FDCA—c om es fro m la ng ua g e th at

ap pl ie s t o a ll of § 33 1.

-1 5-li ab il it y to co rp or a t e o f fic ers or whe th er co rp or at e of fic ers can on ly b e in vi ol at io n

whe n th ey ne gl ig en tl y fai l to pr ev en t th e i r s u b o r d in at es ’ vi ol at io ns

. Fo r th ree

reas on s, I read Par k to req ui re a sh owi ng of ne gl ig en ce be fo re ex po si ng a res po ns ib le

co rp or at e o ffi cer t o i m

pr is on m en t fo r th e act s o f a s ub or di na te

.

Fi rs t, th e la ng ua ge fro m Par k st ro ng ly su gg es ts —i f no t ou tri gh t as se rts —t ha t

th e Su pr em e Co ur t ad op te d a ne gl ig en ce st an da rd fo r a § 33 1 co nv ic ti on

. The Co ur t

no te d th at th e FDCA “ pu ni sh es ‘neg le ct whe re th e la w req ui r e s care , or in act io n

w h ere it im

po se s a du ty.’ ” Par k

, 42 1 U.S. at 67 1 (q uo ti ng Mor is se tt e v

. U n i t e d

St at es , 34 2 U.S. 24 6, 25 5 (1 95 2) ). A co rp or at e of fic er is li ab le whe re he co ul d ha ve

pr ev en te d a vi ol at io n “ wit h no m or e care th an so ci et y m ig ht reas on ab ly ex pe ct an d

no m or e ex ert io n th an it m ig ht reas on ab ly ex act fro m on e who as su m ed hi s

res po ns ib il it ie s.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Mor is se tt e , 34 2 U.S. at 25 6)

. Acco rd in g to th e Co ur t,

th e FDCA “ im

po se s no t on ly a po si ti ve du ty to se ek ou t an d rem ed y vi ol at io ns whe n

th ey oc cu r bu t al so , an d pr im ari ly, a du ty to im pl em en t m eas ur es th at wil l in su re th at

vi ol at io ns wil l no t oc cu r.” Id

. at 67 2. Thi s la n g u a g e e s ta bl is he s ne gl ig en ce as th e

st an da rd

. Se e Bla ck’s La w Dict io na ry (1 0t h ed

. 20 14 ) (d efi ni ng ne gl ig en ce as “ [t]he

fai lu re to ex erci se th e st an da rd of care th at a reas on ab ly pr ud en t pe rs on wou ld ha ve

ex erci se d in a s im il ar si tu at io n; an y co nd uc t th at fal ls be lo w th e le ga l st an da rd

es ta bl is he d to pr ot ect ot he rs ag ai ns t un reas on ab le ris k of ha rm ”). Mo reo ve r, th e Par k

di ss en t ex pr es sl y co nc lu de d th at th e Co ur t ha d art ic ul at ed a ne gl ig en ce st an da rd

. Se e

id

. at 67 8- 79 (St ewart

, J., di ss en ti ng ) (in te rp ret i n g t he m ajor it y op in io n as

es ta bl is hi ng a ne gl ig en ce st an da rd bu t co nc lu di ng th at th e jury in st ru ct io ns “ di d no t

co nf or m to th e st an da rd s th at th e Co ur t it se lf se ts ou t to d a y” )

. Te ll in gl y , th e Par k

Co ur t di d no t co nt es t th e di ss en t’s cl ai m th at th e st an da rd it ha d de sc rib ed am ou nt ed

to ne gl ig en ce.

Se c o n d

, I read th e la ng ua ge fro m Par k as es ta bl is hi ng a ne gl ig en ce st an da rd

as a m at te r of co ns ti tu t i o n a l av oi da nc e. Se e Uni on Pac

. R. Co

. v. U.S. Dep ’t of

-1 6-Homel an d Se c. , 73 8 F.3 d 88 5, 89 2- 93 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). The few c o u r t s t h a t ha ve

co ns id ered th e qu es ti on al l ag ree th at imp r is on m en t ba se d on vi cari ou s li ab il it y

vi ol at es su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s. La dy J. Li ng er ie , Inc . v. Cit y o f Ja cks on vi ll e , 17 6

F.3 d 13 58

, 13 67 -6 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ); Dav is v. Ci ty of Pea ch tr ee Ci ty

, 30 4 S.E.2d 70 1,

70 3 (Ga. 19 83 ); St at e v. Gumi ng a , 39 5 N.W .2d 34 4, 34 5 (Mi nn

. 19 86 ). S ect io n 3

33 3( a) imp o se s up to on e y ear’s im pr is on m en t fo r an y m is de m ean or vi ol at io n of

§ 33 1. Fo r th is reas on , I wou ld in te rp ret Par k no t to im po se vi cari o u s l i a b i l i t y on

ex ecu ti ve s un de r § 33 1. Se e, e.g

. , Cl ar k v. Ma r t i n ez , 54 3 U.S. 37 1, 38 0- 81 (2 00 5)
(“ [W] he n de ci di ng whi ch of two pl au si bl e st at ut or y co n s t r uc ti on s to ad op t, a co ur t

m us t con si de r th e ne ces sa ry co ns eq ue nc es of it s ch oi ce. If on e of th em wou ld rai se

a m ul ti tu de of co ns ti tu ti on al pr ob le m s, th e oth er shou ld pr ev ail— whe th er or no t th os e

co ns ti tu ti on al pro bl em s p ert ai n t o t he pa rti cu la r li ti ga nt be fo re t he Co ur t.”)

.

Fi na ll y , read in g Par k to req ui re ne gl ig en ce is co ns is te n t wit h th e Su pr em e

Co ur t’s pr act ic e of in te rp ret in g st at ut es th at fai l to st at e a sp eci fic m en s rea in a way

th at av oi ds “ cri m in al iz [in g] a br oa d ran ge of ap pa ren tl y in no cen t co nd uc t.” Se e

Li pa ro ta v. Uni te d St at es , 47 1 U.S. 41 9, 42 6 (1 98 5)

. Here, gi ve n th e br oa d ran ge of

co nd uc t th at wou ld be cri m in al iz ed un de r a vi cari ou s li ab il it y st an da rd —es se nt ia ll y

al l co nd uc t co mm i t t e d b y co rp or at e of fic ers th at fal ls sh or t of el im in at in g ev ery

po ss ib le FDCA vi ol at io n— I in st ead read Par k as p ro vi di ng th at a co rp or at e o ffi cer

“ cau se s” a su bo rd in at e’s vi ol at io n of § 33 1 on ly whe n th e vi ol at io n res ul te d fro m th e

co rp or at e o ffi cer’s n eg li ge nc e.

I co nc ur in th e jud gm en t be cau se th e DeCo st ers were ne gl ig en t in fai l i n g to

pr ev en t th e FD C A v i o la ti on s. Bo th pl ead ed gu il ty to fai li ng to pr ev en t th e

int ro duc tio n of ad ul te rat ed fo od in to in te rs ta te co m m erce de sp it e ho ld in g “ po si tion[ s]

Se e al so Co mmon wea lt h v. Ko cz wa ra , 15 5 A.2d 82 5, 83 0 (Pa. 19 59 ) (h ol di ng 3

th at im pr is on m en t fo r vi cari ou s li ab il it y cri m e vi ol at ed du e pr oc es s un de r Pen ns y lv an ia Co ns ti tu ti on ).

-1 7-of su ffi ci en t au th or it y

. . . to de te ct

, pr ev en t, a n d c o r r e ct th e sa le ” of th e eg gs

.

Fu rth er, I ag ree wit h Ju dg e Mu rp hy th at th e di st ric t c o u rt fo un d su ffi ci en t fact s to

su pp or t th e co nc lu si on th at th e DeCo st ers were ne gl ig en t

. In pa rti cu la r, th e co ur t 4

co nc lu de d th at th e DeCo st ers “ kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own ” ab ou t th e ris ks pr es en te d
by t h e i n s a n it ary co nd it io ns at Qua li ty Egg s’s Io wa faci li ti es an d ab ou t th e pr op er

pr ev e n t a t i ve an d rem ed ia l m eas ur es th at th ey sh ou ld ha ve ta ke n in res po ns e. Se e

Par k , 4 21 U.S. a t 67 1 (“ The accu se d, if h e d o e s n ot wil l th e vi ol at io n, us ua ll y is in

a po si ti on to pr ev en t it wi th no m or e car e th an so ci et y m ig ht reas on ab ly exp ect an d

no m or e ex ert io n th an it m ig ht reas on ab ly ex act fro m on e who as su m ed hi s

res po ns ib il it ie s.” (q uo ti ng Mor is se tt e , 34 2 U.S. at 25 5) ). The DeCo st ers ’ ch al le ng e

to th ei r se nt en ces rel ie s on th e pr em is e th at th ey were he ld vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th ei r

su bo rd in at es ’ vi ol at io ns —t ha t is

, li ab il it y was im pu te d to th em ba se d so le ly on th ei r

po si ti on s in th e co m

pa ny. Bu t be cau se th e DeCo st ers were neg li ge nt

, th ei r li ab il it y

is no t vi cari ou s. In st ead

, th ey are res po ns ib l e fo r th ei r own fai lu res to ex erci se

reas on ab le care to pr ev en t th e in tro du ct io n of ad ul te rat ed fo od

. The la w is cl ear th at

a de fen da nt can be se nt en c e d t o i mpri so nm en t ba se d on ne gl ig en ce— or , fo r th at

m at te r, ba se d on st ric t li ab il it y st em m in g fro m hi s own co nd uc t. Se e St ap le s v.

Uni te d St at es , 51 1 U.S. 60 0, 60 7 & n .3 (1 99 4) ; Mor is se tt e , 34 2 U.S. at 25 1 n.8

. I

th eref or e co nc ur in th e jud gm en t an d joi n Ju dg e Mu rp hy’ s op in io n to th e ex te nt th at

it rel ie s on th e DeCo st ers ’ ne gl ig en ce in affi rm in g th ei r se nt en ces of im pr is on m en t.

The DeCo st ers ag reed to ha ve th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ce th em ba se d on fact s 4

fo un d at se nt en ci ng

. W hi l e th e DeCo st ers ob jecte d at se nt en ci ng to po te nt ia l

im pr is on m en t on Si xt h Am en dm en t gro un ds

, se e App re nd i v. New Jer se y , 53 0 U.S.

46 6 (2 00 0)

, th ey do no t arg ue th is po in t on ap pe al an d th eref or e waiv e th is ob

jecti on

. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. C

ow an , 69 6 F .3d 70 6, 7 09 n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

-1 8-BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

Aus ti n (J ack ) an d P e t e r D e Co st er, en te red pl eas of gu il ty be cau se th ei r

co rp or at io n so ld eg gs co nt am in at ed by a s t rai n of sa lm on el la en te rit id is ba ct eri a

du rin g a pe rio d of tim e ex te nd in g "[b ]etween ab ou t th e be gi nn in g of 20 10 an d in or

ab ou t Aug us t 20 10 ." The go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th at th es e were fed eral m is de m ean or

of fen se s un de r 21 U.S.C. § 33 1( a) an d § 33 3( a)(1 ). As no te d by t he d i s tri ct co ur t, 1

th ey were at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d of fen se s th e two ran ki ng co rp or at e of fic ers of

Qua li ty Egg

, LLC (Qu al it y Egg )– Ja ck be in g th e tru st ee of th e t r u s t t h a t own ed

Qua li ty E gg an d Pet er, hi s so n, be in g t he Ch ie f Ope rat in g Off ic er o f th is m

ul ti st at e

co rp or at e en te rp ris e.

At al l rel ev an t ti m es , Qua li ty Egg op erat ed si x Io wa farm s wit h 73 ba rn s fil le d

wit h 5 m il li on la y in g he ns an d 24 ba rn s fil le d wit h y ou ng ch ic ks th at ha d no t be gu n

to la y eg gs

. Qua li ty Egg al so ha d se ve ral pr oc es si ng pl an ts whe re eg gs were cl ean ed

,

pa ck ed

, an d sh ip pe d. Ja ck al so own ed se ve ral ot he r eg g- pr od uc ti on co m pa ni es in th e

st at e of Mai ne whe re Peter ap pa ren tl y sp en t part of hi s work in g ti m e. Co ll ect iv el y , the se w er e la

rg e, div er se , an d la bo r-i nt en si ve ag ric ul tu ral op erat io ns req ui rin g se ve ra l

le ve ls an d area s of m an ag em en t, as well as a su bs ta nt ia l nu m be r of "h an ds -o n "

pr od uc ti on work ers

.

At th e ou ts et

, it is co m

pe ll in g to di sc ern th at th e DeCo st ers ' pl eas of gu il ty an d

waiv er of tri al by jury in de fen se of th es e cri m in al m is de m ean or ch a r g e s were

su bs ta nt ia ll y cab in ed by a se r ie s of fact ua l an d pr oc ed ur al st ip ul at io ns by th e

I ad m it to ad va nc in g a m eas ur e of fact ua l red un da nc y by way of th is di ss en t. 1

Howev er, I do so to la y a fo un da t i o n f o r s om e ad di ti on al ev id en ti ary em an at io ns

cru ci al to a n a d e q ua te un de rs ta nd in g of th e m an ag em en t of th is co m pl ex bu si ne ss

op erat io n in so far as su ch m an ag em en t rel at es to th e cri m in al pr os ecu ti on of th es e two

co rp or at e ex ecu ti ve s.

-1 9-pr os ecu to rs an d th e DeCo st ers p u r su an t to Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 11

,

al l o f whi ch were ac cep te d b y an d b in di ng up on th e d is tri ct co ur t.

The reco rd di sc lo se s th at sa lm one lla co nta m ina tion of eg gs so ld by Qua li ty Egg

was th e so le ba si s fo r ad ul te rat io n cl ai m s u nd er § 33 1( a) co nc ern in g t he DeCo st ers

as in di vi du al s. Giv en su ch fact ua l pr ed ic at e, th e go ve rn m en t st ip ul at ed th at "[t ]o

da te " (Ap ril 18

, 20 14 ), "t he go ve rn m en t's in ve st ig at io n ha s no t id en ti fie d an y

pe rs on ne l em

pl oyed by o r as so ci at ed wit h Qua li ty Egg , i nc lu di ng th e de fen da nt [s ],

who ha d kn owl ed ge du rin g th e [ch arg ed ] ti m e fram e fro m Ja nu ary 20 10 th ro ug h

Aug us t 12

, 20 10

, th at eg gs so ld by Qua li ty Egg were, in fact

, co nt am in at ed wit h

Sa lmo ne ll a [ Ent er it id is ]. Fu rth er, th e go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed th at th e cri m in al

c o mp l a i n t ag ai ns t th e DeCo st ers as ex ecu ti ve s of Qua li ty Egg was an im at ed b y

sa lm on el la -p rev en ti on reg ul at io ns pu bl is he d b y t h e F DA on Ju ly 9, 20 09

, bu t no t
pl aced in fo r ce un ti l Ju ly 9, 20 10

, th ro ug h ad op ti on of an Egg Safe ty Ru le

. The

go ve rn m en t al so st ip ul at ed th at "u nt il ad op ti on of th e Egg Safe ty Ru le in Ju ly 20 10

, th ere was no le ga l or reg ul at or y req ui rem en t" for Qual it y Egg to co m

pl y wit h t he se

reg u l a t io ns

. The reco rd al so es ta bl is he s th at

, gi ve n th e st at e of th e art of po ul trysa ni ta ti on m an ag em en t, eg g- sa f e t y di ffi cu lt ie s, es pe ci al ly in vo lv in g sa lm on el la

co nt am in at io n, ar e in he ren t i n s uc h o pe rat io ns

. 2

Res pe ct fu ll y , I do no t a g ree th at Park

, 42 1 U.S. 65 8, cas ts a lo ng , da rk 2

in carc erat io n sh ad ow ov er th e DeCo st ers as co nt en de d by th e co ur t's op in io n an d th e

se pa r a te co nc ur ren ce, es pe ci al ly in vi ew of th e m or e rece nt Su pr em e Co ur t juri sp ru de nc e em erg in g fro m Zad vydas

, St ap le s, an d Torr es

. The op in io ns sh ou ld

no te th at Park 's s en te nc e act ua ll y am ou nt ed to $2 50 in fin es an d n o i nc arce rat io n.

It is al so un fai r fo r th e co nc ur ren ce to co nt en d th at th e DeCo st ers ne gl ig en tl y fai le d to pr ev en t a sa lm on el la ou tb reak wit hi n th e b r o a d r each of th ei r co rp or at e

op erat io ns

. Afte r al l, th e go ve rn m en t fu ll y co nc ed ed in th e pl ea ag reem en ts us ed to

o bt ai n th e co nv ic ti on s th at ne it he r th e DeCo st ers no r an y ot he r Qua li ty Eg g

em pl oyees were aware of an y sa lm on el la co nt am in at io n at an y ti m es rel ev an t to th e

-2 0-In sh or t, la rg e nu mb e r s of em pl oyees an d su pe rv is or s were ne ed ed an d

em pl oyed by Qua li ty Egg in an at te m pt t o a v o i d pr ob le m s wit h th is ub iq ui to us

pa th og en

. Thu s , t h e mi sd em ean or co nv ic ti on s fo un d an d im po se d by th e di st ric t

co ur t in res po ns e to th e DeCo st ers ' ve ry li m it ed gu il ty pl eas am ou nt ed to cri m es an d

se nt en ces ba se d u po n a lm os t wh ol ly non cu lp ab le co nd uc t.

On th e reco rd an d th e st ip ul at ed fact s, it is al so cl ear th at th e DeCo st ers la ck ed

th e ne ces sa r y mens rea or "g ui lt y m in d," th at is "[t ]he st at e of m in d th at th e

pr os ecu ti on , to se cu re a co nv ic ti on , m us t pr ov e th at a de fen da nt ha d whe n co m m itt in g

a cri m e," Men s Rea

, Bl ack 's Law Dict i o n a r y ( 1 0 t h ed

. 20 14 ). Thi s m en s rea

req ui rem en t is es pe ci al ly ap pl ic ab le whe n th e cri m e, as he re, is pu ni sh ed by

im pr is on m en t. Alt ho ug h § 333 (a)( 1) pu rp or ts to au th or iz e a cri m in al m is de m ean or

se nt en ce of "i m

pr is on [m en t] fo r no t m or e th an on e y ear," th e DeCo st ers ' pr es en te nc e

m ot io ns to pr ecl ud e an y su ch se nt en ce of im pr is on m en t ba s e d u p on th e vi cari ou sli ab il it y st an da rd th e d is tri ct co ur t ap pl ie d s ho ul d h av e b een gra nt ed

.

The Fi fth Am en dm en t D u e P r oc es s Cl au se fo rb id s th e go ve rn m en t fro m

d e p r i v i n g an y pe rs on of li be rty wit ho ut du e pr oc es s of la w. "Fr eed om fro m

im pr is on m en t– fro m go ve rn m en t cu st od y , d et en ti on , or ot he r fo rm s of ph y si cal

res tra in t– li es at th e he art of th e li be rty th at Cl au se pr ot ect s." Zad vydas v. Dav is

, 53 3

U.S. 67 8, 69 0 (2 00 1)

. Su ch a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n as at te nd s th e DeCo st ers ' pr is on

se nt en ce is well il lu st rat ed in St ap le s v. Uni te d Stat es , 51 1 U.S. 60 0 (1 99 4) . Und er

th e Nat io na l Fi rear m s Act , 26 U.S.C. §§ 58 01 -5 87 2, an y fu ll y au to m at ic weap on is

a "fi rear m " with in th e m ean in g of the st at ut e. St ap le s, 51 1 U.S. at 60 2. The Act, in

m is de m ean or vi ol at io ns ch arg ed in th e c r i mi na l in fo rm at io ns

. It is li ke wis e in eq ui ta bl e in m

y vi ew fo r th e co ur t and th e co nc ur ren ce to c red it th e g ov ern m en t's

in fla m m at or y se nt en ci ng rh et or ic rece iv ed by th e di st ric t co ur t to su pp or t co rp or at eof fic er in carc erat io n es pe ci al ly si nc e su ch pl eas were obt ai ned th ro ug h be ni gn fact ua l

st ip ul at io ns of c riminal li ab il it y ful ly agree d u po n b y

th e p art ie s.

-2 1-tu rn , m ak es it a cri m e to po ss es s a fir earm th at is no t reg is te re d

. I d

. a t 60 2- 03

.

St ap le s po ss es se d an un reg is te red se m i-a ut om at ic rif le th at

, un be kn own st to hi m , ha d

be en m od ifi e d to pe rm it au to m at ic fir in g. Id

. at 60 3. Upo n pr os ecu ti on un de r th e
Act, th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t h a ve to pr ov e th at St ap le s

kn ew th e weap on fir ed au to m at ic al ly becau se of t he m od ifi cat io n b y so m eo ne els e.

Id . at 6 04 . He was co nv ic te d a nd sen te nc ed to pri so n. Id

.

On ap pe al

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t rev ers ed

, sa y in g "we m us t co ns tru e [an

im pr is on m en t] st at ut e in li gh t of the ba ck gr ou nd rul es of t he co m m on law i n whi ch

t h e req ui rem en t of so m e men s re a fo r a cri m e is fir m ly em be dd ed ." Id

. at 60 5
(ci ta ti on om it te d)

. W h i l e t h e go ve rn m en t arg ue d, as it do es in th is cas e, th at a

pr es um pt io n of th e ne ed fo r a f i n d i ng of m en s rea di d no t ap pl y in St ap le s, th e

Su p r e me Co ur t reject ed th e arg um en t an d rev ers ed

, ho ld in g th at St ap le s's la ck of

kn owl ed ge of th e weap on 's cap ab il it y of au to m at ic fir e pr oh ib it ed hi s co nv ic ti on an d

pr is on se nt en ce. Id

. at 61 9. And

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t's m or e rece nt an d pe rh ap s m or e

fo rcef ul it erat io n of thi s st at e-o f-m in d req ui rem en t cam e in Torr es v. Ly nc h, 13 6 S.

Ct . 16 19 (20 16 ). The Co ur t, am pl ifyin g o n S ta pl es , st at ed :

Co ns id er th e la w res pe ct in g men s re a

. In ge ne ral

, co ur ts in te rp ret
cri m in al st at ut es to req ui re th at a de fen da nt po ss es s a men s re a , or gu il ty

m in d, as to e v e r y el em en t of an of fen se

. Tha t is so ev en whe n th e "s ta tu te by it s te rm s do es no t co nt ai n" an y de m an d of th at ki nd

. In su ch

cas es , co u r t s r e a d th e st at ut e ag ai ns t a "b ack gr ou nd ru le " th at th e de fen da nt m

us t kn ow each fact m ak in g hi s co nd uc t il le ga l. Or ot he rwis e

sa id

, th ey in fer, ab se nt an ex pr es s in di cat io n to th e co nt rary, th at
Co ng res s i nt en de d s uc h a m en ta l-s ta te req ui rem en t.

Torr es , 13 6 S. Ct

. at 16 30 -3 1 (ci ta ti on s om it t e d ) ( f i r st qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. XCi te m en t Vid eo , In c., 51 3 U.S. 64

, 70 (1 99 4) ; ne xt qu ot in g St ap le s, 51 1 U.S. at 61 9)

.

-2 2-The re is

, of co ur se , no ex pr es s co ng res si on al st at em en t to th e co nt rary

co nt ai ne d in § 33 1( a) or § 33 3( a)(1 ). W hi le it m ig ht be po s si bl e to co nc oc t an

act io na bl e in te rp ret at io n of § 33 3( a)(1 ) th at om it s a m en s rea req ui rem en t, Co ng res s

ha s no po wer to en act a fed eral st at ut e th at vi ol at es th e Fi fth Am en dm en t Due Pro ces s

Cl au se

.

Thi s co ur t an d th e di st ric t co ur t ci te cas es th at th ey co nt en d su pp or t a rat io na le

th at a cri m in al se nt en ce of im pr is on m en t i s s om et im es va li d wi th ou t p ro of of m en s

rea, o r , a g u il ty m in d. Bu t, th e cas es ad va nc ed by th e go ve rn m en t an d th e co ur ts

can no t be ar th e lo ad pl aced up on th em , bo th as m at te rs of fact an d la w. Uni te d St at es

v. Dot te rwei ch

, 3 20 U.S. 27 7 (1 94 3)

, a cas e su bs ta nt ia ll y pr ed at in g Zad vydas

, St ap le s, an d Torr es , pr ov id ed a n o p i n io n fas hi on ed to rem ed y an un ex pe ct ed jury

ve rd ic t. Dot te rwei ch

, who was th e pr es id en t an d ge ne ral m an ag er of a ph arm acal

co m pa ny, was ch arg ed , a lo ng wit h hi s co rp or at io n, wit h th ree m is de m ean or co un ts

of v i ol at io n of th e Fed eral Fo od

, Dru g an d Co sm et ic Act un de r § 33 1( a) an d

§ 33 1( a)(1 ). Dot te rwei ch

, 32 0 U.S. at 27 8. The jury fo un d th e co rp or at io n no t gu il ty

bu t co nv ic te d Dot te rwei ch

, fin in g hi m $5 00 on each of th e th ree m is de m ean or co un ts

an d im po si ng 60 da y s of pr ob at io n. Id .; se e Uni te d St at es v. Bu ffal o Ph arm acal Co

., 13 1 F.2 d 50 0, 5 0 1 ( 2 d Ci r. 19 42 ), rev 'd, Dot te rwei ch , 3 20 U.S. 2 77

. The re was no

in carc erat io n. The ci rcu it co ur t rev ers ed th e co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce bu t th e Su pr em e

Co ur t rev ers ed on th e fact s in vo lv ed

. Dot te rwei ch

, 32 0 U.S. at 28 5. Fo ur jus ti ce s

di ss en te d fr om

Ju st ic e Fra nk fu rte r's rev ers al op in io n. Id . at 2 93

.

Bo th co ur ts al so ad va nc e th e ho ld in g in Uni te d St at es v. Park

, 42 1 U .S. 65 8
(1 97 5) . As an in it ia l m at te r, it m us t be no te d t ha t Pa rk was c ha rg ed wit h 2 1 U.S.C.

§ 33 1( k)

, w h e r e as th e pu rp or te d DeCo st er vi ol at io ns in vo lv e § 33 1( a). Id

. at 66 0.

And

, Park was in di vi du al ly ch arg ed as Pres id en t of Acm e Mar ke ts

, In c., an d tri ed an d

co nv ic te d by a jury on fiv e co un ts of vi ol at in g su bs ect io n (k )

. I d

. a t 66 0, 66 6. He

was , h owe ve r, se nt en ced to $5 0 pe r co un t fo r a to t al of $2 50 .00

. Id . a t 66 6. The re

-2 3-was no in carc erat io n. In carc erat io n of Dot te rwei ch or Park

, as we no w kn ow, wou ld

ha ve vi ol at ed Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t as cl earl y es ta bl is he d in Zad vydas

, St ap le s,

an d To rres

.

In fas hi on in g se nt en ces or affi rm an ces of su ch se nt en ces to da y , th e co ur t an d

th e d i s t r ic t co ur t op in io ns co m pl ai n at le ng th th at Qua li ty Egg be twee n 20 06 an d

20 10 fai le d to s u f

f i c ie nt ly te st eg gs fo r sa lm on el la an d pe rfo rm ot he r co rp or at e

act iv it ie s in co nn ect io n wit h it s co ns um pt io n- eg g pr od uc ti on an d m ark et in g. Bu t, th e

go ve rn m en t's in di vi du al cri m in al -act iv it y al le ga ti on s at is su e he re are bo tt om ed up on

act s o ccu rri ng on ly in l at e Ju ly and earl y Aug us t o f 20 10

.

The ba si s fo r th e co ur t's affi rm an ce of th e di st ric t co ur t is fu ll y en c a p s u l at ed

as fol lo ws:

Here, as own er of Qua li ty Egg

, Ja ck de ci de d w hi ch ba rn s were

su bjec t to sa lm on el la en vi ro nm en ta l te st in g, an d as ch i e f op erat in g of fic er, Pet er co or di na te d m an y of th e co m pa ny's sa lm on el la pr ev en ti on

an d ro de nt co nt ro l effo rts

. Neit he r of th e DeCo st ers cl ai m to ha ve be en "p owe rle ss " to pr ev en t Qua li ty Egg fro m vi ol at in g th e FDCA. Des pi te
th ei r fam il ia rit y wit h th e co nd it io ns in th e Io wa faci li ti es , th ey fai le d to

ta ke su ffi ci en t m eas ur es to im pr ov e th em

. On th is reco rd

, th e di st ri c t

co ur t reas on ab ly fo un d th at "t he de fen da nt s 'kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own ,' of th e ris ks po se d by th e in sa ni ta ry co nd it io ns at Qua li ty Egg in

Io wa, 'kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own ' th at ad di ti on al te st in g ne ed ed to be

pe rfo rm ed be fo re th e su sp ect ed sh el l eg gs were di st rib ut ed to

co ns um ers , an d 'kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own ' of [] pr op er rem ed ia l an d

pr ev en ta ti ve m eas ur e s to red uc e th e pr es en ce of [s al m on el la ]. " The

F DCA "p un is he s ne gl ect whe re th e la w req ui res care ." W e co nc lu de

th at th e reco rd he re sh ows th at th e DeCo st ers are li ab le fo r ne gl ig en tl y fai li ng to pre ve nt th e sa lm on el la ou tb reak

.

Ant e at 8-9 (al te rat io ns in ori gi na l) ( ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

-2 4-Thu s, th e co ur t va l i d a t es th e di st ric t co ur t's pr is on se nt en ce ba se d up on th e

DeCo st ers ' su pp os ed ne gl ig en ce in p e r f o r mi ng ex ecu ti ve fu nc ti on s on be ha lf of

Qua li ty Egg

. Howev er, th ere is no pr eced en t th at su pp or ts im pr is on m en t wit ho ut

es ta bl is hi ng so m e m eas ur e of a gu il ty m in d on th e pa rt of th es e two in di vi du al s, an d

no ne is es ta bl is he d in th is cas e. The go ve rn m en t co nc ed es in th e DeCo s t e r s' pl ea

a g reem en ts th at th ey di d no t kn ow th at an y eg gs di st rib ut ed by Qua li ty Egg at an y

rel ev an t t im es "were , in fact , con ta m in at ed wit h Sa lmo ne ll a [ Ent er it id is ]. " In de ed

, th e pl ea ag reem en ts ex pl ic at ed ab ov e fu rth er co nc ed e th at no pe rs on as so ci at ed wit h

Qua li ty Egg ha d kn owl ed ge of sa lm on el la co nt am in at io n at an y rel ev an t ti m e. And

whe n fir st al e r t e d t o t he pr ob le m by th e FDA in Aug us t of 20 10

, Qua li ty Egg

im m ed ia te ly, an d at gr eat ex pe ns e, vo lu nt ari ly reca ll ed "h un dr ed s of m il li on s of sh el l

eg gs pr od uc ed at Qua li ty Egg 's faci li ti es ." Thi s is ha rd ly th e st uf f of "g ui lt y m in ds ."

Fi na ll y , I co nc ed e th at th e co ur t ci te s two cas es in w h ic h in di vi du al pr is on

se nt en ces were im

po se d fo r vi ol at io ns of § 33 1( a) an d § 33 3( a)(1 ). The y are Uni te d

St at es v. Green ba um , 13 8 F

. 2 d 4 37 (3 d Ci r. 19 43 ), an d Uni te d St at es v. Hig gi ns , No. 0 9- 40 3- 4, 2 01 1 WL 60 88 57 6 (E.D. Pa. Dec . 7, 2 01 1)

. Neit he r cas e is ap po si te

he re fo r reas on s of fact or la w. Green ba um is cl earl y wro ng gi ve n Su pr em e Co u r t

pr eced en t es ta bl is he d si nc e 19 43

, e s p e c i al ly th at fo un d in Zad vydas

, St ap le s, an d

Torr es

. And de fen da nt Hig gi ns , co nt rary to th e DeCo st ers , "p ers on al ly pa rti ci pa te d

in th e de ci si on s to pr oc eed wit h un au th or iz ed cl in i c a l t r i a l s to te st th e sa fet y an d

effi cacy of [ad ul te rat ed co m po un ds ] on hu m an s." Hig gi ns , 20 11 W L 6 0 8 8 5 7 6

, at

*1 3.

The re is no pr oo f th at th e DeCo st ers , as in di vi du al s, were in fect ed wit h a "g ui lt y m in d" or , p e r ha ps , ev en wit h ne gl ig en ce. Cl earl y , th e im pr ov id en t pr is on

se nt en ces im

po se d i n t hi s ca se were d ue pro ces s v io la ti on s.

I res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 5-