2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-16-2008 

# U SA v . Elec tro Gl a s s P ro d P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3191

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ele ctr o Gl as s P r od " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 357. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/357NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_______________ N o. 07- 3191

_______________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ELE CT RO G LA SS PRO D U CT S, A p p e llan t.

_______________ O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00117) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

A r gued Sept ember29, 2008 B efore: F ISH E R , C H A G A R E S , and H A R D IM A N C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober16, 2008) D avi d M . L ai gai e ( A r gued) M ar i ana Ross m an DI L W OR TH PA XSO N, LLP 3200 M el l on B ank C ent er 1735 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el f orAppel l ant2

M aryB eth B uchana n R ober tL . E berhar dt( A r gued) 700 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 400 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

__________________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. E l ectr o- G l as s Pr oduct s ( “El ectr o- G l as s ”) appea l s i t s convi ct i on forvi ol at i ng the A r m s E xpor tC ontr ol A ct( “A E C A ”) , ar gui ng thatthe G overnm entpr es ent ed i ns uffi ci ent evidence to prove b ey on d a reasonab l e do ub tthat Electro- G l ass act ed w i l l full y . B ecause th e ju ry v e rd ic t is s u p p o rt e d b ys u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e , w e w ill a f f ir m . I. W e w r i t e s ol el yfort he bene fi tof the part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual c o n tex t an d leg a l h isto ryo f th is c a se . T h e re f

o re , w e w ill se t f

o rth o n lyth o se f

a c ts necessaryt o o ur anal y si s. E l ectr o- G l as s m anufa ctur es “gl as s pr eform s , ” i ncl udi ng “s ol dergl as s pr eform s . ” S o ld e r g la s s p re f

o rm s a re u s e d , in tera lia , b ym a n u f a c tu re rs o f

n ig h t v is io n e q u ip m e n t. T h e A E C A re q u ire s m a n u f a c tu re rs to o b tain lice n se s b e f o re e x p o rtin g m ili tar yp ro d u c ts th a t a re o n th e U n ite d S ta te s M u n itio n s L is t ( “ M u n itio n s L is t” ). In O ctob er 1 9 9 3 , a U n it ed S tat es c u stom s ag en t visi ted E lectro-G lass to inq u ir e a b o u t an o rd e r E lec tro -G las s re c e iv e d f ro m a D u tch e n tityc a lled B .V . D e lf t. P u rsu a n t toO n J a n u a ry 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , B .E . D e lf t b e g a n to o p e ra te a s B e l- O p tr o n ic D e v ic e s L td . 1 Forcons i s t ency , w e r efe rt o t hi s ent i t yas B . E . D el ftthr oughoutthe opi ni on. 3 t he age nt ’ s i ns t ruct i ons , E l ectr o- G l as s s oughta comm odi t yj ur i s di ct i on det erm i nat i on f ro m th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

S tate (“ D O S ” ) re g a rd in g w h e th e r a lice n se w a s n e c e ss a ryto expor tt he pr eform s . T he cus t om s agental s o m ade a pr es ent at i on t o E l ectr o- G l as s dur i ng t hi s t i m e per i od t o educa t e the company ’ s r epr es ent at i ves aboutthe A E C A l i cens i ng r equi r ement s . I n J anuary1994, D O S i s s ued a c om m odi t yj ur i s di ct i on det erm i nat i on t hat t he s peci fi c pr eform B . V . D el ftor der ed w as on the M uni t i ons L i s t , and ther efor e El ectr oG las s c o u ld n o t sh ip it w ith o u t a lic e n se . E lec tro -G las s c h o se n o t to sh ip to B .V . D e lf t. E i gh ty ears l at er, i n Jun e 20 02 , E l ect ro- G l ass r ecei ved an o rderfor sol der gl ass preform s fr om an Indian com pan ycal l ed B . E . D el ft . E l ect ro- G l ass w as aw are that these 1 p re f o rm s w e re o ri g in a lly d e v e lo p e d f o r m ilita ry a p p lic a tio n in n ig h t v is io n d e v ic e s . E lec tro -G las s a lso a c k n o w led g e d th a t itw a s u n c o m f o rta b le w ith c o n tin u e d d e a lin g s w ith B .E . D e lf

t a n d th a t it r e c o g n iz e d th e s im ila ri ty in th is e n tity’s n a m e to B .V . D e lf t. E lec tro -G las s s o u g h t g u id a n c e f ro m se v e ra l g o v e rn m e n t ag e n c ies re g a rd in g its abi l i t yt o s hi p t o B . E . D el ft . E l ectr o- G l as s cont act ed the Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on and C ongr es s m an J ohn M ur t ha, w ho r efe r r ed El ectr o- G l as s ’ s i nqui r yt o U ni t ed St at es C ust om s. A l t ho ug h n on e of these gov ernm ental agen ci es t old E l ect ro- G l ass nott o m ake s hi pm ent s t o B . E . D el ft , E l ectr o- G l as s neverr ece i ved ac tual author i zat i on forthe sh ip m e n ts. M o re o v e r, a U n ited S tate s c u sto m s a g e n t to ld E lec tro -G las s th a t h e w o u ld4

have t o m ake i nqui r i es w i t h t hr ee f eder al agenc i es , i ncl udi ng D O S, t o det erm i ne w hether E l ectr o- G l as s coul d l egal l yexpor tt he pr eform s . W i t houtw ai t i ng fordefi ni t i ve author i zat i on fr om t he governm ent , E l ectr o- G l as s m ade f ours hi pm ent s t o B . E . D el ft w ith o u t o b ta in in g a lic e n s e . O n D ece m ber6, 2004, t w o U ni t ed St at es cus t om s agent s vi s i t ed El ectr o- G l as s and t ol d t he companyt hati tw oul d need a l i cens e t o s hi p pr eform s t o B . E . D el ft . O nl ythen di d E l ectr o- G l as s s t op m aki ng s hi pm ent s . O n A pr i l 5, 2006, a gr and j uryi ndi ct ed E l ectr o- G l as s on fourcount s of vi ol at i ng the A E C A , one foreac h s hi pm entthatE l ectr oG las s m a d e to B .E . D e lf t. A f ter a f o u r-d a ytrial, a ju ryf

o u n d E lec tro -G las s g u iltyo n a ll f o u r c o u n ts. E lec tro -G las s f iled a tim e lya p p e a l.

II. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . B eca us e El ectr o- G l as s i s appea l i ng fr om a fi nal j udgm entof convi ct i on, w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. See Fl anaga n v. U ni t ed St at es , 465 U . S. 259, 2 6 3 (19 8 4 ); C atl in v . U n it ed S tat es, 32 4 U . S . 2 2 9 , 2 3 3 (19 4 5 ). D efe ndantbear s a hea vybur den on appe al . W hen cons i der i ng the s uffi ci encyof t he ev i den ce t o u ph old a cr i m i nal conv i ct i on , w e m ustview the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he G overnm ent . See G l as s erv. U ni t ed St at es , 315 U . S. 60, 80 ( 1942) ; s ee also U n it ed S tat es v . D en t, 1 4 9 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (no ti n g that this C o u rt ap p li es a “p arti cu larl yd ef ere n ti al st an d ard o f re v iew w h en d ec iding w h ethe r a jury5

ver di ctr es t s on l egal l ys uffi ci entevi dence ”) . Seen i n t hatl i ght , w e af fi r m i f “a nyr at i onal trier o f f a c t co u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . ” J acks on v. V i r gi ni a, 443 U . S. 307, 319 ( 1979) . “[T] he evi dence need not unequi vocal l ypoi ntt o t he def endant ’ s gui l tas l ong as i tperm i t s a fi ndi ng of gui l tbey ond a reas on able dou bt. ” U nit ed S t at es v. D avis , 18 3 F . 3d 23 1, 23 8 (3d C i r. 19 99 ); see al so U n it ed S tat es v . M cN eil l, 8 8 7 F . 2 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) (“O n lyw h en the re co rd cont ai ns no evi dence , r egar dl es s of how i ti s w ei ghed, fr om w hi ch the j urycoul d fi nd gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , m ayan appe l l at e courtover turn t he ver di ct . ” ( quot i ng B ra n d o m v . U n ite d S ta te s , 4 3 1 F .2 d 1 3 9 1 , 1 4 0 0 (7 th C ir . 1 9 7 0 )) ). III . T o est abli sh a viol at i on of the A E C A , 22 U . S . C . § 2 77 8(c) , the g ov ernm ent m ust pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat : ( 1) the def endantexpor t ed an a r t i cl e fr om the U ni t ed St at es , ( 2) t hatar t i cl e i s l i s t ed on the M uni t i ons L i s t , ( 3) the def endantexpor t ed t he art i cl e w i t houta l i cens e, and ( 4) the def endantdi d s o w i l l ful l y . See U ni t ed St at es v. T sai , 95 4 F . 2d 15 5, 16 0 n . 3 (3d C i r. 19 92 ). W e hav e no t ed thatthe “w i l l fulness” e lem e n t o f

th e A E C A is e sta b lish e d o n ly“ [ i]f th e d e f e n d a n t k n e w th a t th e e x p o rt w a s in vi ol at i on of the l aw . ” I d. at162. T he G overnm entdoes notneed t o pr ove the bas i s of t hatknow l edge, ort hatt he def endantw as aw ar e of the l i cens i ng r equi r ement . I d. E l ectr o- G l as s as s er t s t hatt he G overnm entfai l ed t o pr ove the “w i l l ful nes s ” el ement of the off

ens e. T o di ffe r ent i at e i t s cas e fr om thos e w her e A E C A vi ol at i ons have be en6

es t abl i s hed, E l ectr o- G l as s poi nt s t o cas es i nvol vi ng defe ndant s w ho ei t heradmi tknow i ng t hatt hei rconductw as i l l egal orw ho acti n a mannerthatdemonstr at es s uch know l edge bym i sr epresent i ng i nfo rm at i on t o the G ov ernm ent. E l ect ro- G l ass al so argues t hat m ost A E C A cas es i nvol ve s hi pm ent s of m i l i t aryi t ems t o w ar - t orn orhos t i l e countr i es . See, e. g. , T s ai , 954 F. 2d at158- 59 ( aff i r m i ng a gui l t yver di ctw her e the def endantfal s i fi ed document s t o s m uggl e i t ems thr ough C us t om s , had bee n i nform ed thata l i cens e w as r equi r ed t o expor thi s pr oduct , and t ol d an under coveragentt o “ac tdum b” aboutthe li ce n sing req u ir em en t) . P o in tin g to m o re e x tre m e A E C A v io latio n s, h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t au to m a tica lly im p lyth a t E lec tro -G las s’s c o n d u c t d id n o t rise to th e lev e l o f w ill f u ln e ss , an d it ce rta in ly d o e s n o t allo w E lec tro -G las s to m e e t it s heavybur den on appe al . T he fa ctr emai ns that E lec tro -G las s h a d a f

o u r-d a yju rytrial, d u rin g w h ich it h a d a f u ll an d f a ir o p p o rtu n ityto pr es enta def

ens e t o t he G overnm ent ’ s char ges . A ft erw ei ghi ng the evi dence and eval uat i ng t he cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es , the j urydet erm i ned thatthe G overnm entpr oved, bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , t hatE l ectr o- G l as s vi ol at ed the A E C A w i l l ful l y . I n r evi ew i ng t he j ur yver di ct , w e exe r ci s e gr eatdefe r ence and af fi r m i f any ra tio n a l trier o f f a c t co u ld have f ound w i l l ful nes s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . T he fa ctthatthe r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence w hi ch coul d have s uppor t ed a c ontr aryconcl us i on does notw arr antr ever s al as l o n g a s t h e r e i s s u f

f i c i e n te v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r tth e v e r d i c t . He r e , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e re is .7

C ons i der i ng t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , w i t h al l of t he cr edi bi l i t yi nfer ence s vi ew ed i n favorof the G overnm ent , w e fi nd thata r at i onal t r i er of fa ctcoul d i nfert hatE l ectr o- G l as s knew aboutthe A E C A l i cens i ng r equi r ement s dat i ng back t o the 199 3-199 4 ti m e peri od and , therefore, that the co m pan ykn ew that atl east s om e of i t s s ol dergl as s pr eform s w er e mi l i t arypr oduct s thatcoul d notbe s hi pped w i thout a l i cens e att he t i m e El ectr o- G l as s m ade s hi pm ent s t o B . E . D el ft . Speci fi cal l y , a r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have c oncl uded that : ( 1) a U ni t ed St at es cus t om s agentm ade a pr es ent at i on t o E l ectr o- G l as s r epr es ent at i ves i n 1993 aboutthe A E C A l i cens i ng r equi r ement s ; ( 2) t hi s pr es ent at i on and the 1994 D O S com m odi t yj ur i s di ct i on det erm i nat i on putE l ectr o- G l as s on not i ce thatcert ai n m i l i t arypr oduct s cannotbe exp ort ed w i t ho ut a l i cense; (3) E l ect ro- G l ass knew that the p reform ati ssue i n thi s case w as “ o ri g inallyd ev elop ed fo r m il it aryap p li ca ti o n , ” (A p p en d ix 0 0 7 5 3 ), an d w as th ere fo re s u b j e c tt o DO S l i c e n s i n g ; a n d ( 4 ) whe n El e c t r o - Gl a s s ma d e th e f o u rs h i p me n t s t o B. E. D el ftw i t houtobt ai ni ng a l i cens e oreven r eques t i ng a comm odi t yj ur i s di ct i on det erm i nat i on, i tknew t hatdoi ng s o w as i l l egal . T hus , a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f o u n d , b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t, th a t E le c tr o -G la s s v io la te d th e A E C A w illf u lly. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.