Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/319714527/United-States-v-Bemka-Corp-11th-Cir-2010
Timestamp: 2020-07-07 16:08:00
Document Index: 429755435

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 3372', '§ 1538', '§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 3372', '§ 3372', '§ 1538', '§ 1538']

United States v. Bemka Corp., 11th Cir. (2010) | Search And Seizure | Search Warrant
United States v. Bemka Corp., 11th Cir. (2010)
Filed: 2010-03-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-11217
speichernUnited States v. Bemka Corp., 11th Cir. (2010) für später speichern
05 v California
229071.pdf
Annabelle Winters, D/B/A Sharp's Pawn Shop v. Board of County Commissioners, Osage County, Oklahoma Osage County Sheriffs Department George Wayman, Individually and as Sheriff of Osage County Allen Landsdown, Individually and as Deputy Sheriff Dale Penny, Individually and as Deputy Sheriff, 4 F.3d 848, 10th Cir. (1993)
2. Caballes vs. Court of Appeals CD
United States v. Schaffer, 4th Cir. (2008)
United States v. Robert Lee Brown, 984 F.2d 1074, 10th Cir. (1993)
Taxation Law Case Digest.Doc
Demurrer to Evidence BP 6
Silahis G.R. No. 163087
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAR 12, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK
No. 09-11217 Non-Argument Calendar
D. C. Docket No. 08-20365-CR-FAM
BEMKA CORP., d.b.a. Bemka Corporation House of Caviar and Fine Foods, MAX MOGHADDAM, a.k.a. Bahmadi Moghaddam Mohammad, a.k.a. Mohammad Moghaddam,
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Bemka Corporation (“Bemka”) and Max Moghaddam (together,
“the defendants”) appeal their convictions for conspiracy to export paddlefish roe
without required permits, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, false labeling of export
shipments, in violation of 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(d)(1),(2), and attempting to export an
endangered species without a permit, in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1). The
defendants argue the district court erred in denying their motion to suppress and
that there was insufficient evidence to find Moghaddam guilty of all three counts
of the indictment. Having found no error, we affirm.
On appeal, the defendants argue that there was insufficient evidence to
support probable cause to issue a search warrant for Bemka’s headquarters. The
defendants assert that the information in the June 2007 warrant affidavit relating to
the export and sale of caviar in 2004 and 2005 was stale. They argue that the
allegations in the affidavit did not demonstrate that they knowingly violated the
law and contest information in the affidavit concerning Bemka’s abandonment of a
permit application to export American paddlefish roe. They also argue that the
search exceeded the bounds set by the search warrant and that the warrant was over
“Because rulings on motions to suppress involve mixed questions of fact and
law, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its
application of the law to the facts de novo.” United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d
1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000). “[A]ll facts are construed in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below.” Id. “[T]he duty of a reviewing court is simply to
ensure that the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for concluding’ that probable
cause existed.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238–39, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332, 76
L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983) (alteration omitted).
Probable cause and staleness
Under the Fourth Amendment, probable cause to support a search warrant
exists when the totality of the circumstances allows the conclusion that “there is a
fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular
place.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S. Ct. at 2332. Our staleness doctrine
“requires that the information supporting the government’s application for a
warrant must show that probable cause exists at the time the warrant issues.”
Bervaldi, 226 F.3d at 1264. When determining staleness, courts should consider
the length of time, “nature of the suspected crime (discrete crimes or ongoing
conspiracy), habits of the accused, character of the items sought, and nature and
function of the premises to be searched.” Id. at 1265 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “[W]here an affidavit recites a mere isolated violation then it is not
unreasonable to believe that probable cause quickly dwindles with the passage of
time.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Conversely, “if an affidavit recites
activity indicating protracted or continuous conduct, time is of less significance.”
Stale information can establish probable
cause if “the government’s affidavit updates, substantiates, or corroborates the stale
material.” United States v. Jimenez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000)
Under the totality of the circumstances test, the magistrate judge reasonably
found probable cause based on the allegations in the warrant affidavit. See Gates,
462 U.S. at 238, 103 S. Ct. at 2332. The magistrate judge had a substantial basis to
determine that the defendants were probably engaged in the illegal exportation of
protected fish roe and that evidence of this crime would be found at Bemka’s
headquarters. See id. The court also did not err by finding that the information in
the affidavit was not stale because the affidavit also presented evidence of more
recent wrongdoing by the defendants.
Particularity and exceeding the scope of the search warrant
The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant “particularly describ[e] the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. Amend.
IV. “A warrant which fails to sufficiently particularize the place to be searched or
the things to be seized is unconstitutionally over broad.” United States v. Travers,
233 F.3d 1327, 1329 (11th Cir. 2000). Additionally, “[i]f a search exceeds the
scope of the terms of a warrant, any subsequent seizure is unconstitutional.”
United States v. Jackson, 120 F.3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir. 1997). “However, a
search may be extensive as reasonably necessary as required to locate the items
described in the warrant[.]” Id.
We conclude that the warrant stated with particularity the items to be seized
and the place to be searched. We also disagree with the defendants’ assertion that
the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant. The defendants raise this
argument for the first time on appeal; therefore, we review only for plain error.
See United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007). To prove plain
error, the defendants must show (1) error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affects
substantial rights. Id. The defendants have failed to show that the district court
plainly erred. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the defendants’ motion to
On appeal, the defendants argue that the district court erred by denying
Moghaddam’s motion for acquittal as to the conspiracy charged in Count One
because the government did not present evidence, direct or circumstantial, that he
knowingly and willfully conspired with anyone to export protected paddlefish eggs
without the required permits. The defendants also argue that the district court erred
by denying Moghaddam’s motion for acquittal as to false labeling of export
shipments, as charged in Count Two, and attempt to export paddlefish eggs
without a permit, as charged in Count Three, because the government presented no
evidence that Moghaddam knowingly violated the law. The defendants argue that
the evidence, at best, demonstrated that Moghaddam accidentally mislabeled the
caviar at issue.
We review de novo whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction,
inquiring as to whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the government, any reasonable jury could have found the essential elements of a
crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Charles, 313 F.3d 1278, 1284
(11th Cir. 2002). All reasonable inferences are drawn, and all facts are viewed, in
the government’s favor. United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1236 (11th Cir.
2001). “At least where some corroborative evidence of guilt exists for the charged
and the defendant takes the stand in his own defense, the defendant’s
testimony, denying guilt, may establish, by itself, elements of the offense.” United
States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314–15 (11th Cir. 1995).
To convict Moghaddam under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government had to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Moghaddam (1) knowingly and voluntarily entered
into an agreement with another person to export paddlefish without the required
permits and (2) the agreement was manifested by an overt act. 18 U.S.C. § 371;
see United States v. Lafaurie, 833 F.2d 1468, 1470 (11th Cir. 1987) (holding that a
conspiracy is an agreement to commit an illegal act, into which the defendant
knowingly and voluntary enters, and which is manifested by an overt act). In order
to convict Moghaddam under 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(d)(1), (2), the government had to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had made or submitted “any false record,
account, or label for, or any false identification of, any fish, wildlife, or plant
which has been, or is intended to be (1) imported, exported, transported, sold,
purchased, or received from any foreign country; or (2) transported in interstate or
foreign commerce.” 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(d)(1), (2). To convict Moghaddam under
16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1), the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that he had attempted, without a permit, to “engage in any trade” or “possess any
specimens” of a species protected under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”). 16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1).
Moghaddam’s knowledge and participation in the conspiracy could be
inferred from the evidence in the record. There was sufficient evidence for a
reasonable jury to find that the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that Moghaddam had conspired with Inés Fécherolle, the manager of his Belgian
company, to illegally export paddlefish roe without proper permits.
A reasonable jury also could have concluded that Moghaddam mislabeled
shipments of paddlefish roe as bowfin roe (Count 2), and attempted to export
bowfin roe without proper permits (Count 3). Based upon the contradictory
statements made by Moghaddam to FWS agents, evidence that someone at Bemka
created a false shipping log entry, and evidence that someone attempted to relabel
paddlefish caviar pail lids as bowfin, the jury could reasonably infer that
Moghaddam knowingly violated the law. Therefore, we affirm the defendants’
Dokumente ähnlich wie United States v. Bemka Corp., 11th Cir. (2010)
thirdy demaisip
Gel Divino
216719707-Motion-to-Suppress-Evidence.pdf
People vs Sucro.docx
12 Columbia VS CA
12 Columbia VS CA.pdf
TORTS - Lim vs. Ponce de Leon.docx
Jan Kenrick Sagum
People vs Turco Jr
Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
Statcon Case Assignment
Marchie Velez
255448020 Cooperative Development Authority vs Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative Inc 382 SCRA 552 Case Digest Administrative Law
affidavit of service-gerold radar g josue-arnold co case-2019.docx
Servando G.R. No. L-36481
SOME-JURISPRUDENCE-ON-ALTERNATIVE-DISPUTE-RESOLUTION-edited.docx
Almayannah Andig Abdulgaffor
Navarro v. Executive Secretary
Espinosa vs. Aquino
Sandiganbayan RULES
34 Mateo_s Digest- Ching v Cheng
Villareal v. People
People vs. Flores
5 Telefast Comp vs Castro
WCPD-2007-07-30-Pg1000
Joe v. West, 4th Cir. (1998)
Barangay San Roque v. Pastor