FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 6, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 99 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 7- cr-8 01 38 -KAM-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us FRANK SARCONA, a.k .a. Fran k S arco ne , a.k .a. Dave Jo hn so n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 6, 2 01 2) Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN, an d S UHRHEINRICH, Cir cu itJu dg es . *

Honora ble Richard Suhrhe inrich, United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, * sitti ngby designation.MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

A jury co nv ic te d F ran k S arco naof t wen ty-ni ne co un ts of asi xty -two -co un t in di ctm en t ch arg in g fr au d a ndothe r cri min al act s ar is in g fr om Mr. Sar co na ’s op erat io n o f th e “ Lip oB anCli ni c.” The Lip oB anCli ni c, a d ire ctm ai l-o rd er bu si ne ss , em

pl oyed a v ari ety

of d ecep ti ve pra ct ic es to m ark etan d s el l the weig ht lo ss pro du ct“ Lip oB anDiet ary Supp le m en t.” Mr. Sa rco naap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on onall co un ts , arg ui ng th at : (1 ) th e in jun ct io n wh ic h was th e p red ic at e fo r hi s cr im in al co nt em ptco nv ic ti on s was in va li d; (2) th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is m is br an di ng co nv ic ti on s in li gh t o f th e st atut e’s am bi gu it y ; (3 ) th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t re qu ire s re ve rs in g h is frau d c on vi ct io ns ; (4 ) hi s m on ey -laun de rin g c on vi ct io ns are i nv al idun de r rec en t Supr em e Co urt juris prud en ce; an d (5 ) th e Dis tri ctCo urt i m pr op erl y adm it te d ex pe rt t es ti m on y . After o ral arg um en t an d c aref ul rev ie w of t he bri efs an d t he reco rd , we affi rm .

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HIS TORY

A. On J anua ry

27 , 19 97 , th e Fed eral Trad e Co m m is si on(“ FTC”) f

il eda co m pl ai ntinth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a ag ai ns t M r. Sarc on a an d t he co m pa ny 2th athe co -fo un de d, Sl imAm eri ca, In c. The c om pl ai ntall eg edth atth e d efen da nt s en ga ge d i n d ecep ti ve pra ct ic es inth e adve rti si ng an d s al e o f a wei gh t l os s p ro du ct cal le d “ Supe r-Fo rm

ul a.” The se de cep ti ve pra ct ic es in cl ud edadve rti si ng sc ie nt ifi cal ly uns up po rte d c la im s ab ou t ac hi ev in g dram at ic weig htlo ss withi n br ie f pe rio ds of t im e wit ho utdi et in g o r ex erci se , as wel l as fal se rep res en ta ti on s o f m ed ic al en do rs em en t. Thi s was no t the fir stsch em e fo r whi chMr. Sar co nawas a ccu se d o f us in g frau d andde cep ti on to m ark eta co ns um er p ro du ct . Three si m il ar s ch em es pr eced edSli m

Am eri ca. The fir stwas “ Fo rev er Th in ,” whi chpro m is edus ers pe rm an en t wei gh t l os se s o f up to si x p ou nd s i n t he fir stforty-eig htho ur s an d up t o twel ve po un ds ev ery two week s the reaf te r. Thi s s ch em e en de d i n 1 98 5 i n res po ns e to pro ceed in gs in it ia te d b y th e U.S. Po st al Serv ic e an d t he Sta te of Ut ah . A sec on d wei gh t-l os s s ch em e was “ Am erdream ,” whi chso lda pr oduc t ca ll ed“ The Ult im at e So lu ti on DietPro gr am .” Pro m ot io na l m at eri al s fo r th atpro gr am cl ai m ed : “ Afte r th e fi rs t wee k, s om e in di vi du al s wi ll see lo ss es of up t o 3 5 p ou nd s . . . an ex tre m el y

ov erwei gh t p ers on co ul d e as il y dro p 4 0, 6 5, ev en10 0 p ou nd s o r m or e.” The m at eri al s fu rth er s ta te d t ha t an y pa rti ci pa ntwho m ad e th e p ro gr am ’s m in im um pu rch as e fo r $1 29 .95 wou ldrece iv e a $ 1,0 00 U.S. Treas ury bo nd . Fo ur st at es en joi ne d M r. Sarc on a’s m ark et in g p ract ic es an d c la im s. By 199 1 t hi s 3sc he m e h adals o c om e to anen d.

Inth e th irdsch em e p rece di ng Sli m Am eri ca, Mr . Sarco naledth e co m pa ny Adv an cedAut om ot iv e Tech no lo gi es (“ AAT”) an d t el em ark et edth e “ Petro Mi zer,” whi chwas d es cri be d a s a f ue l s av in g a ndem is si on co nt ro l d ev ic e fo r au to m ob il es . Si x s ta te s o bt ai ne d i nju nc ti on s o r m on ey jud gm en ts ba se d o n AAT’s al le ge dl y frau du le ntmis rep res en ta ti on s. In a dd it io n, M r. Sarc on a si gn eda se tt le m en t ag reem en t wi th th e U.S. Po st al Serv ic e. Ult im at el y , inres po ns e to a FTC co m pl ai ntfil edag ai ns t M r. Sarc on a, Am erdream , andAAT, the U.S. Dist ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof Ari zo naen te reda pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on in19 91 en joi ni ng Mr. Sa rco nafro m

m ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts with re sp ectto th e fu tu re m ark et in g o f

“ an y di etpro du ct , pro gr am , or s erv ic e.” The Co urt al so ord eredMr. Sar co naan d AAT to p ay

$6 22 ,63 4 i n c on su m er re dr es s. It wa s ag ai ns t thi s b ack gr ou ndth atth e FTC s uc ceed edinob ta in in g abro ad pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n o n Jul y

2, 1 99 7 t o a dd res s M r. Sarc on a’s th en -rec en t Sl imAm eri ca s ch em e. One o f th e m os t far-re ach in g t erm s o f th e in jun ct io n en te redby the U.S. Distric t Co urt o f th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a p ro hi bi te d Mr. Sa rco nafro m

en ga gi ng ina ran ge of b us in es s p ract ic es , in cl ud in g m ak in g a ny st at em en t o r rep res en ta ti on th ata pr oduc t wo ul d c au se weig htlo ss or areduc ti on in bo dy siz e. The p rel im in ary in jun ct io n a ls o re qu ire d M r. Sarc on a to ob ta in a $1

4m il li on pe rfo rm an ce b on d b efo re en ga gi ng “ in th e adve rti si ng , m ark et in g, o r sa le

of an y pro gr am , servi ce o r pr oduc t” rel at in g t o wei gh t l os s o r co nt ro l. The in jun ct io n fu rth er s pe ci fie d anu m be r of term s an d c on di ti on s fo r bo nd . The b on d ha d t o b e is su edby a sur ety co m pa ny (1) ad m it te d t o d o b us in es s i n e ach st at e in whi chMr. Sar co nawas t o d o b us in es s an d t ha t (2 ) he lda Fed eral Cert ifi cat e o f Aut ho rit y As Acce pt ab le Surety

On Fe de ral Bo ndan d R ei ns ur in g. Th e b on d h ad to be is su edinfav orof t he FTC fo r th e b en efi t o f an y vi ct im s i nju redas ares ul t o f Mr. Sa rco na ’s vi ol at io n o f th e p rel im in ary in jun ct io n. Th e b on d h adto rem ai n i n fu ll for ce wh il e Mr. Sa rco naen ga ge d i n t he res tri ct edco nduc t, an d fo r atlea stth e fo ll owi ng th ree years. An d a t l eas t t enda y s b efo re u nd ert ak in g a ny restric te d co nduc t, Mr . Sarco naha d t o p ro vi de writ te n n ot ic e an d p ro of of t he bo ndto th e FTC. Two y ears lat er, o n J un e 3 0, 1 99 9, the U.S. Dist ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a en te reda pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on . After m ak in g anu m be r of fin di ng s o f fac t an d c on cl us io ns of l aw, th e Co urt o rd eredth at“ th e p rel im in ary in jun ct io n e nt eredinth is cau se on Ju ly 2, 19 97 is he reb y m ad e p erm an en t.” It fu rth er o rd eredMr. Sar co nato “po sta pe rfo rm an ce b on d i n t he am ou ntof $ 5 m il li on be fo re en ga gi ng , di rect ly or in di rect ly, in an y bu si ne ss rel at edto weig ht lo ss pro du ct s o r se rv ic es sp eci fic al ly, orinm ark et in g o f an y pro du ctor s erv ic es 5ge ne ral ly, an ywhe re i n t he Uni te d S ta te s.” M r. Sarc on a ap pe al ed , andinbo th a

m ot io n t o s ta y

th e p erm an en t an d i n h is ap pe ll at e b rie f, arg ue d t ha t the in jun ct io n’s $ 5 m il li on -d ol la r bo ndrequi rem en t was ex ces si ve ly bur de ns om e. Thi s C ou rt d en ie d M r. Sarc on a’s st ay reque stan d l at er d is m is se d h is ap pe al for fai lu re t o p ro se cu te . App aren tl y , th e in flu en ce o f ev enth is dra st ic pe rm an en t i njunc ti onon Mr. Sarc on a’s co nduc t turne d o utto be qu it e li m it ed . Starti ng fro m lat e 1 99 9 o r ear ly 20 00 , on ly m on th s af

te r th e is su an ce o f th e p erm an en t i nju nc ti on , Mr. Sar co na fo rm edan d ra n aco m

pa ny with sev eral ass oc ia te s ca ll edth e Lip oB anCli ni c, In c. It m ark et edan d s ol d aweig ht -lo ss pro du ctcal le d “ Lip oB an .” Lip oB an ’s m ai n in gr ed ie ntwas c hi to sa n, a s he ll fis h- ba se d p ro du ctth atpurp orts to li m itth e b od y ’s ab so rp ti on of l ip id s o r fat . Lipo Ban was m ark et edto co ns um ers th ro ug h d ire ct m ai l s ol ic it at io ns , news pape rs adve rti se m en ts , andth e In te rn et . Mr. Sarc on a wro te an d o rg an iz edth e p ro m ot io na l m at eri al s, wh ic h wer e se ntas apa ck ag e to po te nt ia l cu st om ers by firs t-c la ss m ai l. The pa ck ag e m at eri al s i nc lu de d (1 ) a l et te r fro m “ Jo se ph Maya, M.D.” th atoff eredcu st om ers anop po rtu ni ty to p art ic ip at e in a wei gh t-l os s s tu dy with a ne w pro du ctth atwou lden ab le th em to lo se lar ge am ou nt s o f wei gh t qui ck ly w it ho utch an gi ng th ei r di etor e xe rci se habi ts ; (2 ) a Lip oB anord er fo rm

who se fli p s id e co nt ai ne d a“ Lip oB anTestPart ic ip an t

6Su rv ey ”; (3) ne wsp ap er-l ik e adve rti se m en ts be ari ng “be fo re” a nd“ aft er”

ph ot og rap hs an d t es ti m on ia ls ; (4 ) a b us in es s ca rdfro m “ Jo se phMaya, M.D.,” id en ti fy in g h im

as t he Lip oB anCli ni c’s m ed ic al di rect oran d Geo rg e Fo rg io ne as th e cl in ic di rect or ; an d (5 ) a return e nv el op e p re-a dd res se d t o t he att en ti on of

“ Dr’s. Maya andFo rg io ne ” at“ The Lip oB anCli ni c, In c.” Tho se who ord ered Lip oB anby sub m it ti ng th e “ TestPart ic ip an t Su rv ey ” th enrece iv edth e p ro du ctby m ai l. All of t he m at eri al s i n t he pro m ot io na l p ack ag e co nt ai ne d h ig hl y m is le ad in g, i f no t p at en tl y fal se , rep res en ta ti on s. Fi rs t, “ Jo se ph Maya, M.D.” was a fi ct io n. Th e Lip oB anCli ni c p ai d J os e Ma y a Beh ar, a Me xi cando ct or who was no t l ic en se d t o p ract ic e in th e Uni te d S ta te s an d h adne ve r ev envi si te d t he Lip oB anCli ni c, fo r us e o f hi s n am e (o r on e cl os el y res em bl in g i t) i n c on ne ct io n with t he sal e o f Lip oB an . Direc tl y co nt rary to the cla im s i n t he Lip oB anli te ratur e an d o n t he webs it e, Dr. Maya Behar ha d n ev er co nduc te d s tu di es with Li po Ban . Beyondth at , Geor ge Fo rg io ne was a n u nl ic en se d c hi ro pr act or , an d t he Lip oB an Cl in ic lac ke d the m os t b as ic ch arac te ris ti cs of am ed ic al cli ni c, su chas a reas for in te rv ie win g, d ia gn os in g, s tu dyin g, o r tr eat in g p at ie nt s. Seco nd , th e wei gh t-l os s s tu dy tha t the Lip oB anCli ni c an d i ts “ te am of res earc he rs ” p ur

po rte d t o b e co nduc ti ng was afic ti on . There was n o s uc h s tu dy. 7In st ead , th e Lip oB anCli ni c was si m pl y co ll ect in g d at a fro m

cu st om ers who rep orte d l arg e wei gh t l os se s. No ne of t he Lip oB anCli ni c em pl oyees wer e tr ai ne d weig ht -lo ss , nu tri ti on , or m ed ic al pro fes si on al s. Fi na ll y , so m e o f th e te st im on ia ls inth e p ro m ot io na l p ack ag e were f al se . Fo r ex am pl e, on e st at ed : “ Je rry

Bro wn, a Ph .d, [s ic ] . . . fou ndth atby sim pl y bl oc ki ng th e fatcau si ng cal or ie s i n h is foo d, h e was ab le to lo se 12 0 p ou nd s i n ju st 90 da y s.” In fact , Dr. Bro wn t es ti fie d t ha t h e lo stth atweig htby, in ad di ti on to ta ki ng Lip oB an , bi cy cl in g up t o 1 00 m il es a weekan d s ev erel y res tri ct in g h is cal or ic an d fa t i nt ak es . He als o t es ti fie d t ha t h e n ev er g av e th e Lip oB anCli ni c pe rm is si on to m ak e th atrep res en ta ti on on hi s b eh al f. The Lip oB anCli ni c o pe rat edforap pr ox im at el y fou r y ears an d g en erat ed ov er $ 16 m il li on inrev enue . Duri ng th is ti m e, Mr. Sa rco narece iv edm or e p ro fit s fro m Lip oB ansal es th anan y on e el se an d m ad e v irtua ll y all de ci si on s re gard in g Lip oB an ’s sal es an d m ark et in g. Ap pa ren tl y inli gh t o f th e p ro hi bi ti on s an d m an da te s o f th e p erm an en t i njunc ti on en te redag ai ns t h im , Mr. Sar co nam ad e gr eateffo rt t o c on ceal hi s i nv ol ve m en t wi th th e Lip oB anCli ni c. Mr. Sar co na ’s na m e d idno t ap pe ar i n a ny offi ci al reco rd s o r reg is tra ti on s fo r Lip oB anor t he Lip oB anCli ni c. Inde al in g wi th ve nd or s o n b eh al f of th e co m pa ny, he g en eral ly refe rredto hi m se lf a s “ Dav e Jo hn so n.” If an y on e cal le d fo r Mr. Sa rco na , th e 8co m

pa ny’ s emplo y ees were s up po se d t o re sp on d t ha t the y di d n otkn ow h im . And Mr. Sa rco nane ve r rec ei ve d p aym en t d ire ct ly from th e Lip oB anCli ni c. In st ead , he rece iv edpa ym en t v iach eck s tha t wer e d ep os it edin to anacco un t o f a d efu nc t co rp or at io n tha t was op en edwith ano n- ex is te nttax id en ti fic at io n n um be r. Mr. Sarc on a u se d t he se fun ds to pa y forhi s p ers on al li vi ng ex pe ns es an d d ep os it ed so m e o f th em

in to a fri en d’s ac co un t fo r pu rp os es of p ay in g e xp en se s o n aVirg in Is la nd s h om e h e h adpu rch as edinth e n am e o f an ot he r fri en d. Co gn iz an t o f th e p erm an en t i nju nc ti on ’s per fo rm an ce b on d re qu ire m en t, Mr. Sa rco nacla im eda fri en d i n t he Bah am as tri edto sat is fy th e requi rem en t o n hi s b eh al f. Howev er, atno ti m e d idMr. Sar co naob ta in or p os t a b on d i n fa vo r of th e FTC tha t re m ot el y

sat is fie d t he co nd it io ns sp eci fie d i n the tex t o f th e pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n. No r di d M r. Sarc on a ev er at te m ptto askforcla rif

ic at io n reg ard in g h ow t o p os t the bo ndpro pe rly. B. In20 07 , a fed eral grandjury in th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a returne d a si xty -two -co un t s up ers ed in g i nd ic tm en t ag ai ns t M r. Sarc on a an d aco -d efen da nt , Geo rg e Fo rg io ne , rel at edto th ei r op erat io n o f th e Lip oB anCli ni c. Afte r a jury tri al , Mr. Sar co nawas c on vi ct edof: on e co un t o f co ns pi racy to c ommitm ai l fr au d, wire frau d, an d c riminal co nt em pt(Co un t 1 ); e ig htco un ts of m ai l fr au d (C ou nt s 2 ,

93, 6 , 14 , 16 , 20 , 22 , and25 ); t wo co un ts of wi re fraud(Co un ts 27 an d 2 9) ; o ne

co un t o f co ns pi racy to c ommitm on ey lau nd eri ng (Co un t 3 0) ; ei gh t co un ts of pr om ot io n m on ey

lau nd eri ng (Co un ts 31 –3 8) ; fo urco un ts of m on ey lau nd eri ng tra ns act io ns ov er $ 10 ,00 0 (C ou nt s 4 2, 4 3, 4 7, an d 4 8) ; thr ee co un ts of c au si ng m is br an de d fo odto be in tro du cedin to in te rs ta te co m m erce (Co un ts 50 , 53 , and 59 ); a ndtwo co un ts of c riminal co nt em pt(Co un ts 60 an d 6 2) . He was s en te nc ed to a to ta l o f 24 0 m on th s i n p ris on an d fi le d ati m el y no ti ce o f ap pe al inMarc h 20 10 . On ap pe al , he c ha ll en ge s o nl y hi s co nv ic ti on s.

II . DISCUSSI ON A. Mr. Sa rco na in si st s tha t h is cri min al co nt em ptco nv ic ti on s (C ou nt s 6 0 a nd 62 ) sh ou ldbe rev ers edbe cau se th e supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t fa il edto st at e an of fen se . No o ffen se was s ta te d, M r. Sarc on a cl ai m s, b ecau se th e p erm an en t in jun ct io n was in va li d i n t wo ways. Firs t, the in jun ct io n fa il edto co m

pl y with t he requi rem en t s pe ci fie d b y

Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 5( d) th atin jun ct io ns

“ de sc rib e in reas on ab le de ta il —an d n otby referri ng to th e co m pl ai ntor o th er do cu m en t—th e actor a ct s re st rai ne d o r requi red .” Fed . R. Civ . P. 65 (d )(1 )(C) . Co nt rary to thi s m an da te , th e p erm an en t i nju nc ti on th atMr. Sar co nawas 10co nv ic te d o f kn owi ng ly vio la ti ng sai d s im pl y th atitwas m ak in g p erm an en t the de ta il edpre li m in ary in

jun ct io n a lre ady

is su ed . Accor di ng to Mr. Sar co na , th is ren de redth e p erm an en t i nju nc ti on in va li d. Se co nd , by m od ifyin g t he am ou ntof th e b on d re qu ire m en t fr om th e p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n, the pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on co nf li ct edwith t he pre li m in ary in jun ct io n, re su lt in g i n a m

bi gu it y th atsh ou ldm ak e th e b on d re qu ire m en t une nf or ceab le . Sin ce the pri m ary is su e h ere i s wh ethe r th e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly app li edth e le ga l re qu ire m en ts of Rul e 6 5, we re vi ew th e m at te r de no vo . Meg a Life an d Hea lt h In s. Co . v. Pi en io zek , 58 5 F .3d13 99 , 14 03 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Mr. Sa rco nais co rrec t tha t the pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on fai le d t o c om pl y with th e p reci se term s o f Ru le 65 (d ). Howev er, “ whi le th e p refe ren ce i s t o e nf or ce the requi rem en ts of Rul e 6 5( d) ‘ sc rupu lo us ly,’ fai lu re t o abi de by the pre ci se term s o f th e Ru le do es no t co m

pe l fi nd in g t he jud gm en t b el ow v oi d.” Com bs v. Ryan’s Co al Co ., Inc ., 78 5 F .2d97 0, 9 78 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Ind eed , we ha ve pre vi ou sl y

sai d t ha t “ [a] cou rt m ay

. . . di sr eg ardth e d efec t i f itis cle ar fro m th e to ta li ty of th e la ng ua ge inth e v ari ou s d oc um en ts th atth e co nt em no rs un de rs to odth ei r ob li ga ti on s u nd er the in jun ct io n.” Id.; acco rdUni te d S ta te s v . Goe hr in g, 7 42 F.2d13 23 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ); c f. Ch atha s v . Loca l 1 34 IBEW, 23 3 F .3d50 8, 5 13 (7t h C ir. 2 00 0) (“ Whe n the term s o f anin jun ct io n, al th ou gh no t 11se t fo rth ina se pa rat e d oc um en t as th e ru le requi res , canbe in ferr edfro m th e do cu m en ta ry

reco rdwith s uf

fic ie ntcla rit y

to en ab le a vi ol at io n o f th os e te rm s t o be pu ni sh edas aco nt em

pt , th e in jun ct io n i s en fo rceabl e.”). InCo m bs we furth er de sc rib edth e fac to rs forass es si ng th e v al id it y of a n i nju nc ti on inth e co nt em pt co nt ex t. The se fact or s ar e whe th er the ob li ga ti on s wer e “ in te ll ig ib le ” to th e co nt em no r an d “ cap ab le of e nf

or cem en t,” a ndwhet he r th e co nt em no r un de rs to od th os e o bl ig at io ns . 78 5 F .2dat 9 78 –7 9. W e se e n o i ss ue with re sp ectto th e act s t o b e res tra in edby the pe rm an en t in jun ct io n. Th e te rm s o f th e p rel im in ary in jun ct io n wer e cl ear a nden fo rceabl e. Mr. Sa rco nawas p ro hi bi te d fr om m ak in g any sta te m en t o r rep res en ta ti on th ata pr oduc t wo ul d c au se weig htlo ss or r educ ti on inbo dy siz e, co ul d n otcla im a pr oduc t h adbe enva li da te d b y sci en ti fic stud ie s, an d h adto po sta $1 m il li on bo nd be fo re en ga gi ng ina bu si ne ss ha vi ng to do with d ie ti ng or we ig htco nt ro l. In de ed , th e g ov ern m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e th atMr. Sar co naun de rs to odth es e o bl ig at io ns well . Whe n the pre li m in ary in jun ct io n was th enm ad e p erm an en t thr ou gh un equi vo cal lan gu ag e, itis di ffi cu ltto see ho w th es e te rm s b ecame les s i nt el li gi bl e orcap ab le of e nf

or cem en t. Bu t M r. Sarc on a arg ue s the bo ndrequi rem en ts forth e p erm an en t i nju nc ti on are adi ffer en t m at te r. Spe ci fic al ly, whe n t he am ou ntof t he pe rfo rm an ce b on d 12in crea se d b etweenth e p rel im in ary an d p erm an en t i nju nc ti on s, i t b ecame un cl ear t o

hi m whet he r he sh ou ldpa y

th e am ou ntsp eci fie d b y

th e p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n, the am ou ntsp eci fie d b y

th e p erm an en t i nju nc ti on , or b ot h. He al so cla im s n otto kn ow wh ethe r, in ad di ti on to th e am ou ntof t he bo nd , th e type o f bo ndan d m etho d of po st in g i t h adch an ge d. Nei th er o f th es e arg um en ts is pe rs ua si ve . Set ti ng asi de forno w th e o bjec ti ve cla rit y of t he lan gu ag e in th e p erm an en t in jun ct io n, we n ot e th aton at l eas t two s ep arat e o ccas io ns Mr. Sar co nain di cat ed hi s u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e $ 5 m il li on pe rfo rm an ce b on d o bl ig at io n. In hi s Au gu st 12 , 19 99 Mo ti on forSta y Pen di ng Rev ie w andReque stforExp ed it edRu li ng , Mr. Sarc on a st at edth atth e “ Fi na l J ud gm en t fo r Perm an en t In jun ct io n andDam ag es ”

“ cal le d fo r a fi ve mil li on do ll ar p erfo rm an ce b on d a s co nd it io n t o Def en da nt co nduc ti ng bu si ne ss inhi s l ife lo ng pro fes si onof m ark et in g.” Furth erm or e, inan Octo be r 12 , 19 99 bri ef ap pe al in g t he fin al jud gm en t, Mr . Sarco nawrot e th at“ th e go ve rn m en t i m

po se d afiv e m il li on -d ol la r pe rfo rm an ce b on d re qu ire m en t o n” hi m . Thu s, M r. Sarc on a d em on st rat eda cl ear u nd ers tand in g o f hi s $ 5 m il li on pe rfo rm an ce b on d o bl ig at io n. Als o, i n l ig htof h is cle ar co gn iz an ce o f th e p erfo rm an ce b on d o bl ig at io n, we are s im

pl y unpe rs ua de d b y

Mr. Sar co na ’s arg um en t tha t h e b el ie ve d t he m etho d fo r pa y in g t he bo ndm ig htha ve so m eh ow ch an ge d. If M r. Sarc on a h ad 13qu es ti on s ab ou t h ow ex act ly to p os t h is $5 m il li on bo ndina va li d way, he co ul d

ha ve eas il y

ask ed . Butth ere i s n o re co rdof h im do in g s o. Mo reo ve r, ev enif M r. Sarc on a’s st ory

ab ou t try in g t o p os t the bo ndwere b el ie ve d, i t h ard ly dem on st rat es a g oo d- fai th co m

pl ia nc e eff

ort tha t fe ll sh ort o nl y

be cau se Mr. Sar co nawas n ot qu it e su re h ow t o p os t the bo ndpro pe rly. Ind eed , li tt le ab ou t h is ve rs io n o f ev en ts ev id en ces ge nu in e in te nt io n o n t he pa rt o f Mr. Sa rco nato co m pl y with t he bo nd requi rem en t. It i s tru e th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt s ho ul d h av e sc rupu lo us ly adh eredto Ru le 65 (d ). But b ot h b ecau se Sarc on a’s ob li ga ti on s wer e in te ll ig ib le an d c ap ab le of en fo rcem en t an d b ecau se we ha ve ev ery reas on to th in k h e und ers to odth os e ob li ga ti on s, the pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on un de rlyin g S arco na ’s con te m ptco nv ic ti on s was no t i nv al id . Con se qu en tl y , we affi rm th e co nv ic ti on s. B. Mr. Sa rco naarg ue s tha t the re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is m is br an di ng co nv ic ti on s (C ou nt s 5 0, 5 3, an d 5 9) . Spe ci fic al ly, he ass ert s tha t the la ng ua ge of t he st atut e und er wh ic h h e was co nv ic te d, the Fed eral Fo od , Drug , and Co sm et ic Act (“ FDCA”), i s ambig uo us , len di ng it se lf t o d iff eren t i nt erp ret at io ns . Und er a co up le of t he se st atut ory in te rp ret at io ns , he c la im s, the ev id en ce s im pl y di d n otsupp ort co nv ic ti on . 14To s up po rt t hi s ar gu m en t, Mr . Sarco napo in ts to two am bi gu it ie s i n pa rti cu la r. The fi rs t am

bi gu it y co nc ern s the sco pe of t he de fin it io n o f “ labe li ng .” Sect io n 3 43 (a)( 1) of the FDCA de em s a f oo d, s uc h a s Li po Ban , to be

“ m is br an de d” if “ it s l ab el in g i s fa ls e o r m is le ad in g i n a ny part ic ul ar.” 2 1 U.S.C. § 3 43 (a)( 1) . “ Lab el in g” is sp eci fic al ly defi ne d a s “ al l l ab el s an d o th er wri tt en , pr in te d, o r gr ap hi c m atte r (1 ) up on an y art ic le or a ny of it s co nt ai ne rs or wrapp ers , or(2) acco m

pa nyin g s uc h a rti cl e.” 2 1 U.S.C. § 32 1( m). Mr. Sar co naco nt en ds th at , as am at te r of

law, i t i s d oubt fu l wh ethe r th e Lip oB anpro m ot io na l m at eri al s he he lp edau th oran d d is tri bu te qu al ifi edas “ labe li ng .” Becaus e th e m at eri al s were m ai le d s ep arat el y

fro m th e actua l Li po Ban pro du ct s, the y cle arl y were ne it he r lo cat edon “ an y

art ic le or a ny of it s co nt ai ne rs or wrapp ers ” n or

“ acco m pa nyin g s uc h a rti cl e.” In st ead , he a ss ert s, as m at eri al s i nt en de d t o adve rti se Lip oB anan d a tt ractcu st om ers , th ey si m pl y co ns ti tu te d o rd in ary pr om ot io na l ad ve rti si ng th atfel l o ut si de th e rea chof § 34 3( a)(1 ). Andif thi s i s rig ht , th enas am at te r of

law M r. Sarc on a co ul d n otha ve be enco nv ic te d o f vi ol at in g t he st atut e. The sec on d a m

bi gu it y Mr. Sar co napo in ts to co nc ern s wh ethe r § 3 43 (a)( 1) pr oh ib it s m is br an di ng on th e “ labe li ng ” o r, in st ead , juston th e “ labe l.” Un de r th e FDCA, th es e te rm s ar e d is ti nc t. “ Lab el ” ref ers on ly to “ a d is pl ay

of wri tt en , 15pr in te d, o r gr ap hi c m atte r up onth e imm ed ia te co nt ai ne r of an y art ic le .” 21 U.S.C. § 3 21 (k ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . In co ntras t, as ex pl ai ne d abo ve , “ labe li ng ” en co m pa ss es a br oa de r un iv ers e o f m at eri al s, i nc lu di ng an y pri nt edm at te r

“ acco m pa nyin g” th e p ro du ct . Mr. Sarc on a sa y s the am bi gu it y inth e st atut e supp os ed ly aris es be cau se , onth e o ne ha nd , th e te xtof t he bo dy of th e st atut ory pr ov is io n re fers sp eci fic al ly to “ labe li ng ,” whi le , onth e o th er h an d, the he ad in g o r ti tl e o f th e p ro vi si on refe rs on ly to “ [f]als e o r m is le ad in g l ab el .” 21 U.S.C. § 3 43 (a). Acco rd in g t o M r. Sarc on a, th e h ead in g o f § 3 43 (a) thu s s ug ge st s tha t the pr ov is io n h as a na rro wer s co pe th anth e b ody in di cat es . Andif the st atut e o nl y pr oh ib it edm is br an di ng on th e “ labe l,” t he n, fo r th is reas onas we ll , th e ev id en ce wou ldfai l t o s up po rt M r. Sarc on a’s co nv ic ti on un de r § 3 43 (a)( 1) . At the ve ry

lea st , Mr. Sar co nain si st s, the st atut e is am bi gu ou s i n t he se two way s. He arg ue s tha t i n t he cri m in al co nt ex t s uc h am bi gu it y de m an ds th atwe ap pl y th e ru le of l en it y , un de r whi chwe in te rp retth e st atut e n arro wly an d i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt . He says th atif we d o s o, the ev id en ce wi ll no lo ng er b e su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is m is br an di ng co nv ic ti on s. W e rev ie w bo th qu es ti on s o f st atut ory in te rp ret at io n a ndch al le ng es to th e su ffi ci en cy

of e vi de nc e d e n ov o, v ie win g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t. Un it edSta te s v . Em m anue l, 5 65 F.3d13 24 , 13 30 (11 thCir . 1620 09 ). Mr. Sa rco na ’s arg um en t as su m es th atSupr em e Co urt p rece de ntan d o ur

own cas e la w hav e n otalr eady di ct at edho w to res ol ve th es e p ot en ti al am bi gu it ie s. Thi s as su m

pt io n i s m is ta ke n. Re ga rd in g t he sco pe of t he de fin it io n o f “ labe li ng ,” th e Supr em e Co urt l on g a go ad dr es se d t he m at te r of whethe r m at eri al s tha t trav el in de pe nd en tl y

of t he pro du ctinqu es ti on canbe tre at edas “ labe li ng ” fo r th e pu rp os es of t he FDCA. In Ko rd el v. Un it edSta te s, 3 35 U.S. 34 5, 6 9 S . Ct. 1 06 (1 94 8) , th e Co urt h el d t ha t wh ere l it eratur e “ supp le m en ts or e xp la in s” a pr oduc t an d “ was de si gn edforus e in th e d is tri bu ti on an d s al e o f th e [p ro du ct ], ” “ [t]he fact th atitwentina di ffer en t m ai l [i s] who ll y irr el ev an t.” Id . at 3 50 , 69 S. Ct. at11 0; se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Urbu te it , 33 5 U.S. 3 55 , 35 8, 6 9 S . Ct. 1 12 , 11 4 (1 94 8) (“ The factth atth e fal se li te ratur e le av es ina se pa rat e m ai l d oe s n otsav e th e art ic le fro m be in g m is br an de d.” ). Thatis be cau se itis “ th e te xtua l re la ti on sh ip ,” no t a

“ph y si cal att ach m en t,” “ th atis si gn ifi can t.” Ko rd el , 33 5 U.S. at35 0, 6 9 S . Ct. at 11 0. Th is read in g o f th e st atut e, th e Co urt re as on ed , is si m pl y “ co m m on sen se .” Id . at 3 49 , 69 S. Ct. at11 0. Fo r, “ to ho ldth atth es e dru gs wou ldbe mis br an de d i f th e li te ratur e h adbe ensh ip pe d i n t he same con ta in er b utno t m is br an de d i f th e li te ratur e le ft i n t he ne xtor i n t he pre ced in g m ai l,” wo ul d “ crea te anob vi ou sl y wid e lo op ho le .” Id . at 3 49 , 69 S. Ct. at10 9. 17Here, the ev id en ce i nd is pu tabl y sh owe d tha t the pro m ot io na l m at eri al s an d th e p ro du ct“ ha d aco m

m on ori gi n a nda co m

m on de st in at io n,” an d t ha t the m at eri al s wer e “ us edinth e sa le ” o f Lip oB anan d “ ex pl ai ne d [i ts ] us e[].” Id. at 34 8, 6 9 S . Ct. at10 9. Whil e th e m at eri al s an d t he pro du ctm ay no t h av e b eensen t to ge th er i n o ne pa ck ag e, we no te th e in te rd ep en de nc y be twee n t he m , id ., andth e

“ in te gr at edna tu re o f th e tr an sa ct io ns .” Id . at 3 50 , 69 S. Ct. at11 0. Co ns eque nt ly, th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e jury to c on cl ud e th at“ th e adve rti si ng m at te r th atwas s en t was de si gn edto serve an d d idinfactserve th e p ur po se s o f labe li ng .” Urb ut ei t, 3 35 U.S. at 3 57 , 69 S. Ct. at11 3. An d u nd er Ko rd el , th e m at eri al s the jury foundMr. Sar co nato ha ve pre pa redan d s en t cl earl y fel l wi th in th e sc op e o f th e st atut ory

de fin it io n o f “ labe li ng .” Reg ard in g t he is su e o f whe th er the st atut e’s m is br an di ng pro hi bi ti on s ap pl y on ly to the pro du ct ’s “ labe l” as o pp os edto th e p ro du ct ’s “ labe li ng ,” Mr. Sa rco na ’s cl ai m of a m bi gu it y is als o u na va il in g. We hav e rep eat ed ly hel d t ha t wh ere t he re i s no am bi gu it y inth e te xtof apro vi si on , we sh ou ldno t co ns id er the he ad in g o r ti tl e in ord er t o c on st ru e th e p ro vi si on . Esse x In s. Co . v. Zot a, 46 6 F .3d98 1, 9 89 –9 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) ; Un it edSta te s v . Ferre ira , 27 5 F .3d10 20 , 10 29 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Cha st ai n, 1 98 F.3d13 38 , 13 53 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ); S carb or ou gh v. Offi ce o f Pers on ne l M gmt., 7 23 F.2d80 1, 8 11 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). Thi s ap pr oa chis 18m an da te d b y th e Supr em e Co urt’s i ns tru ct io n t ha t “ th e ti tl e o f a s ta tu te an d t he he ad in g o f a s ect io n c an no t l im itth e p la in m ean in g o f th e te xt . For i nt erp ret at iv e pu rp os es , th ey

are o f us e o nl y

when th ey

sh edli gh t o n s om e am

bi gu ou s wo rdor ph ras e. . . . [T] he y

can no t und o o r li m itth atwhi chth e te xtm ak es pl ai n.” Bhd . of R.R. Trai nm env. Ba lt im or e & Oh io R.R. Co ., 33 1 U.S. 5 19 , 52 8– 29 , 67 S. Ct. 13 87 , 13 92 (19 47 ). Mr. Sa rco na ’s cla im

of a m bi gu it y is pre m is edon th e supp os edco nf li ct be twee n the he ad in g a ndtex t. Whenon ly the tex t i s co ns id ered , ho wev er, n o am bi gu it y ex is ts be cau se th e st atut e una m bi gu ou sl y pro hi bi ts m is br an di ng in

“ labe li ng ,” an d t ha t t erm

is cle arl y de fin ed . See 2 1 U.S.C. § 32 1( m). Und er the se ci rcu m st an ces , we do no t al lo w th e h ead in g t o u nd o t ha t wh ic h t he tex t m ak es pl ai n. We th eref

or e rejectMr. Sar co na ’s cla im th atth e st atut e is am

bi gu ou s. An d si nc e th ere was no am

bi gu it y , we ho ldth e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o c on vi ctMr. Sarc on a fo r m is br an di ng invi ol at io n o f th e FDCA. C. Mr. Sa rco naco nt en ds th atth e Fi rs t Am en dm en t re qu ire s re ve rs al of h is m ai l an d wi re fraudco nv ic ti on s, as well as h is co ns pi racy con vi ct io ns . He clai m s tha t th ere was so m e sc ie nt ifi c supp ort fo r hi s cl ai m s an d t ha t, wh il e h e ex ag ge rat edth e weig htlo ss be ne fit s o f Lip oB an , hi s ex ag ge rat io ns were m ere p uf fery. Mr. 19Sarc on a arg ue s tha t as a bu si ne ss m anhe ha d aFir stAm en dm en t ri gh t t o a dv ert is e

hi s p ro du ctag gr es si ve ly. Mr. Sa rco naan d t he go ve rn m en t d is ag ree abo utwhatst an da rdof r ev ie w sh ou ldbe ap pl ie d h ere. Ho wev er, u nd er ei th er d e n ov o o r pl ai n e rro r rev ie w, Sarc on a’s arg um en t fa il s. Itis well -es tabl is he d tha t the Fir stAm en dm en t d oe s n ot pr ot ectco m

m erci al sp eech th atis frau du le ntor m is le ad in g. Ce nt ral Hud so n Gas & Ele c. Co rp . v. Pub. Se rv . Comm ’n of NY, 4 47 U.S. 55 7, 5 62 –6 3, 5 66 , 10 0 S . Ct. 23 43 , 23 49 –5 1 (1 98 0) . There was s uf fic ie ntev id en ce fo r th e jury to fi ndth atMr. Sarc on a in te nt io na ll y

pre se nt edm at eri al ly fals e an d m is le ad in g i nf orm at io n abo ut th e p ro du ct ’s weig ht -lo ss be ne fit s, the co m pa ny, the “ m ed ic al di rect or ” b eh in d t he pr oduc t, an d astud y

be in g c on du ct edby the co m pany. Bec au se th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s ho w th atMr. Sar co na ’s adv ert is in g wen t far be y on d m ere p uf fery an d i nt o t he real m

of f rau d a ndde cep ti on , he c an no t cl ai m pro te ct io n u nd er the Fi rs t Am en dm en t. D. Mr. Sa rco naarg ue s tha t h is m on ey lau nd eri ng co ns pi racy andsubs ta nt iv e pr om ot io n m on ey

lau nd eri ng co nv ic ti on s s ho ul d b e v acat edinli gh t o f Uni te d St at es v. Sa nt os , 55 3 U.S. 5 07 , 12 8 S . Ct. 2 02 0 (2 00 8) . In Sa nt os , th e Supr em e Co urt re ve rs eda m on ey

lau nd eri ng co nv ic ti on ari si ng fro m anil le ga l g am

bl in g 20en te rp ris e. A pl ur al it y op in io n c on cl ud edth atpro ceed s m ean s “pr of it s” as op po se d t o “ rece ip ts .” Id . at 5 14 , 12 8 S . Ct. at20 25 . The co nt ro ll in g c on curren ce of Ju st ic e St ev en s, h owe ve r, li m it edth is ho ld in g t o c ert ai n c on te xt s. See id . at 52 6– 28 , 12 8 S . Ct. at20 32 –3 4 (S te ve ns , J., co nc urrin g i n t he jud gm en t). Mr. Sarc on a arg ue s tha t u nd er Sant os hi s co nv ic ti on s s ho ul d b e v acat edbe cau se th e go ve rn m en t o nl y

pro ve d h e h adco ns pi redto lau nd er the “ gr os s re cei pt s” of frau du le ntact iv it y , no t “pr of it s.” We rev ie w th is qu es ti on de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v. Del an cy , 50 2 F .3d12 97 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e h av e p rev io us ly decl in edto reco gn iz e th e b ro adin te rp ret at io n o f San to s th atMr. Sar co naadva nc es he re. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Jen ni ng s, 5 99 F.3d12 41 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); Un it edSta te s v . Dem ares t, 5 70 F.3d12 32 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Ins te ad , ob se rv in g S an to s’s “ li m it edpre ced en ti al va lu e,” Dem ares t, 5 70 F.3 d a t 1 24 2, we h av e in te rp ret edth e h ol di ng inSan to s “ in it s n arro wes t fo rm ,” th atis , m erel y

“ th atth e g ro ss rece ip ts of a n u nl ic en se d g am bl in g o pe rat io n [a re] no t ‘pro ceed s’ un de r se ct io n 1 95 6.” Jen ni ng s, 5 99 F.3dat 1 25 2. In no n- ga m bl in g co nt ex ts , we rem ai n b ou ndby a defi ni ti on of p ro ceed s tha t “ in cl ud es rece ip ts as well as p ro fit s.” Id . Becau se th e p ro ceed s d idno t co m e fro m anun li cen se d ga m bl in g o pe rat io n, the y

m eetth e te rm s o f th e st atut e as we ha ve de fin edit , and Mr. Sa rco na ’s arg um en t fo r why his co nv ic ti on s s ho ul d b e v acat edth eref or e fai ls . 21E.

Fi na ll y , Mr. Sar co naarg ue s tha t o ne of t he go ve rn m en t’s ex pe rt wi tn es se s, IRS Ag en t St ep ha n R ob in so n, t es ti fie d o ut si de th e b ou nd s o f Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 7 02 by exp la in in g l eg al co nc ep ts an d o ffer in g h is op in io n abo utMr. Sarc on a’s gu il t. Mr . Sarco nam ai nt ai ns th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n b y

all owi ng th is tes ti m on y , andpre jud ic e res ul te d. We revi ew fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, Emm anue l, 5 65 F.3dat 1 33 2, an d c on cl ud e th atth is arg um en t al so lac ks m eri t. W e h av e p rev io us ly recog ni zedth atadm is si on of “ ex pe rt t es ti m on y on [th e co nc eal m en t] pra ct ic es of c riminal s” is ap pr op ria te foreduc at in g l ay juro rs on th e si gn ifi can ce o f rel ev an t fa ct s. Un it edSta te s v . Garci a-Em anue l, 1 4 F .3d14 69 , 14 76 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). Oth er Ci rcu it s h av e uph el d a dm is si on of e xp erttes ti m on y fo r th e sp eci fic pu rp os e o f educ at in g ju ro rs ab ou t m on ey lau nd eri ng . See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Nekt al ov , 46 1 F .3d30 9, 3 18 (2dCir . 20 06 ); Un it edSta te s v . W il so n, 3 55 F.3d35 8, 3 62 (5t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Bas edon hi s ex te ns iv e ex pe rie nc e in in ve st ig at in g fr au d andm on ey lau nd eri ng cas es , Agen t Ro bi ns on tes ti fie d abo ut th e m an ne r inwhi chpe rs on s m ay lau nd er m on ey

an d e xp la in edth atso m e o f Mr. Sarc on a’s fi na nc ia l ac ti vi ti es rai se d “ redfla gs ” fo r th os e in ve st ig at in g m on ey laun de rin g. He n ev er o ffer edanop in io n re ga rd in g M r. Sarc on a’s gu il t o r 22in no cen ce. Inad di ti on , th e Dis tri ctCo urt p ro pe rly ins tru ct edth e jury rega rd in g

co ns id erat io n o f ex pe rt o pi ni on tes ti m on y . For t he se reas on s, we h ol d t ha t the Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e te st im on y . Fo r eac h o f th es e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we AFFIRM Mr. Sar co na ’s co nv ic ti on s o n a ll co un ts .

23