Opinion ID: 162841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instruction Regarding Exception to Export Ban

Text: 47 Mr. Soussi next claims [t]he district court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the exception to the prohibition of exports to Libya in 31 C.F.R. § 550.409(d), where the goods come to rest in a third country. Specifically, Mr. Soussi requested the jury be instructed: 48 Exports of goods ... from the United States to third countries are not prohibited where the exporter has reasonable cause to believe that; 49 (1) ... the goods will be substantially transformed or incorporated into manufactured products before export to Libya, or 50 (2) The goods will come to rest in a third country for purposes other than reexport to Libya.... 51 The district court declined to offer the come to rest instruction because it concluded there was no evidence Mr. Soussi had reasonable cause to believe the goods would be transformed. Since there was no evidence the trailers were transformed, the district court concluded Mr. Soussi's instruction was not warranted. The court stated, I think that it's clear ... that the goods have to come to rest and be substantially transformed for the coming to rest instruction to apply. Although the district court declined to give an exact meaning of the phrase come to rest, the court concluded it was not enough for the goods to stop in a port overnight or for two nights or five nights and then go on to Libya. 52 We review the district court's decision not to give the come to rest instruction for abuse of discretion and consider the instructions as a whole de novo to determine whether they accurately informed the jury of the governing law. United States v. Cerrato-Reyes, 176 F.3d 1253, 1262 (10th Cir.1999); see also Telecor Communications, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 305 F.3d 1124, 1141 (10th Cir.2002). United States v. McPhilomy, 270 F.3d 1302, 1310 (10th Cir.2001). 53 After reviewing the record and district court opinion, we are convinced the district court erred in its reason for refusing to offer the come to rest instruction. However, we stop short of concluding the district court committed actual error. Instead, we conclude any error was harmless. We will explain first why we cannot agree with the district court's reasoning, and then discuss why any error was harmless. 54 Mr. Soussi contends the district court erred in denying the request for the jury instruction because the court mistakenly believed the trailers had to be substantially transformed and come to rest in a third country in order to escape the export ban. The district court was under the erroneous belief that Mr. Soussi needed to present evidence the trailers would be substantially transformed, as well as evidence the trailers would come to rest. As we explained in Part II.B, a shipment is not illegal if the exporter has reasonable cause to believe either the goods will be transformed or the goods will come to rest. 31 C.F.R. § 550.409(d) (1991). We conclude Mr. Soussi's requested instruction was an accurate statement of the law. 3 55 Assuming Mr. Torti's testimony provided a sufficient foundation for the come to rest instruction, Mr. Soussi acknowledges we may affirm the district court's decision if failing to give the instruction amounts to harmless error. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). In this case, the error is harmless unless the error ... had substantial influence on the outcome of the trial or if one is left in grave doubt as to its influence. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). 56 In performing our harmless error analysis, we find it useful to consider the meaning of the phrase come to rest. While the regulations do not define come to rest, they do offer some guidance as to what come to rest means. 4 According to the regulations, 57 [e]xports of goods ... from the United States to third countries are not prohibited where the exporter has reasonable cause to believe that: 58 .... 59 ... The goods will come to rest in a third country for purposes other than reexport to Libya, e.g., for purposes of restocking the inventory of a distributor whose sales of the particular goods are not predominantly to Libya. 60 31 C.F.R. § 550.409(d)(2) (1991). Consequently, in order for the come to rest exception to apply to Mr. Soussi, the regulations require the trailer to have been exported to Italy for some purpose other than simply forwarding them to Libya. It is not enough for Mr. Soussi to show the trailers spent time in Italy on their shipping route to Libya. 61 Mr. Soussi believes any error was not harmless because there was evidence to support the proposition that the trailers were to `come to rest' prior to transshipment to Libya. He claims Marino Torti's testimony established the buyer of the trailers changed several times, before ... the trailers arrived in Italy. Mr. Torti testified Mosadak Soussi told him an Italian potential buyer cancelled his agreement requiring Oasis UK, in panic to sell the goods to a Libyan company. 5 Mr. Soussi argues the amount of evidence against him is small when compared with this testimony. 62 After reviewing Mr. Torti's testimony, the exhibits, and the other evidence presented at trial, we conclude any error in admitting the exhibits was harmless. Although Mr. Torti testified Mosadak Soussi told him the goods were originally sold to an Italian buyer, there is nothing in Mr. Torti's testimony to suggest Fikri Soussi ever knew about an Italian purchaser. Furthermore, other evidence presented at trial uniformly states Fikri Soussi thought the goods were destined for Libya from the beginning of his involvement in the transactions. The only purchase order and invoice for the trailers found in Mr. Soussi's office showed the trailers were ordered by and sold to Zoo Park [Benghazi], Libya. In fact, Mr. Soussi's closing argument at trial stated: You know if you look at the documents that are in Fikri Soussi's office, there may be dozens of them, maybe 40, 50, 60, all with the words Benghazi, Libya clearly spelled out. Given the incredible weight of evidence that Mr. Soussi knew the trailers were destined for Libya, any error in denying the instruction was harmless. 6