Opinion ID: 2979776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bruce

Text: Bruce first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because the underlying state laws are vague and therefore violate his due process rights. The government says that the state laws are clear and provide notice of what conduct is prohibited. This court reviews the district court’s decision denying a motion to dismiss an indictment de novo. United States v. Plavcak, 411 F.3d 655, 659-60 (6th Cir. 2005). 4 Bruce does not dispute that the underlying state laws provide that no one may harvest mussels less than four inches in diameter. However, Bruce argues that as a consequence of events taking place after a mussel is taken from the water, a legally sized mussel may become illegal. Because of this, Bruce argues that the state laws do not provide fair notice. During the hearing on his motion to dismiss the indictment on these grounds, Bruce presented testimony from James Peach, who explained the mussel harvesting process in detail. The process begins when a mussel is removed from the water by a diver, like Bruce. A mussel is contained within a shell. The shell containing the mussel is passed though a metal ring, four inches in diameter. If the shell passes through the ring, it is too small and must be put back into the water. If the shell is larger than four inches, it may be removed from the water. After removal, the shell is placed on a truck for transport. Once the shells which contain the mussels arrive at the buyer’s location, they are weighed and steamed. During steaming, the mussels and shell are separated. According to Peach, the harvesting and transport processes could result in shells becoming dehydrated, brittle, and easily broken. Peach further explained that because of these processes, there could be a change in the size of shells from the time they are initially harvested, i.e. the shells may become smaller. One of the basic tenets of due process jurisprudence is that citizens are afforded fair notice of precisely what conduct is prohibited. United States v. Baker, 197 F.3d 211, 218-19 (6th Cir. 1999); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957). If a statute is “so technical or obscure that it threatens to ensnare individuals engaged in apparently innocent conduct,” notice will not be presumed. Baker, 197 F.3d at 219. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission Proclamation 99-6 and Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Regulation 220-2-.49 provide for the control of endangered, threatened, or in- 5 need of management mussel species and purport to restrict the number of waterways that are open to harvesting and the size and species of mussels that may be harvested. It is undisputed that mussels smaller than four inches cannot be harvested. Notably, Bruce does not argue that the text of the regulations are vague, nor does he take issue with the four-inch prohibition. Rather, his argument is based on events which take place during the processing of mussels, after they have been removed from the water. He says that the state laws violate due process because a mussel shell which is larger than four inches when legally removed from the water, may later become smaller because of processing. Under these circumstances, Bruce says the state laws do not provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited at the time of harvesting. In this case, however, the shells were sized before they were processed. Trial testimony shows that the shells were sized while they were “green” and “fresh,” and the shells “hadn’t been cooked out yet.” A special agent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service testified that he did not “remember any [shells] being open.” Another agent testified that he “told [his] guys [to] make sure there’s a little daylight in between the ring [and the shell]. We don’t want to take any chances of an accidental legal shell getting into our illegal inventory. So those shells that were close . . . were disregarded.” The testimony at the pretrial hearing on the motion to dismiss confirms that agents processed the shells only “[a]fter they were measured,” and that the shells “were measured green.” Moreover, because the shells were still wet and green when they were measured, any natural deterioration and breakage would have been minimal. As applied to Bruce, then, the state laws provided fair notice that harvesting undersized mussels was prohibited conduct.
6 Bruce next argues that the district court erred in admitting two exhibits at trial because they were not properly authenticated and they were substantially more prejudicial than probative. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gibson, 409 F.3d 325, 337 (6th Cir. 2005). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, uses an incorrect legal standard, or applies the law incorrectly.” Kerobo v. Sw. Clean Fuels, Corp., 285 F.3d 531, 533 (6th Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing a district court’s Rule 403 determination, we must give “the evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and its minimum reasonable prejudicial value.” United States v. Schrock, 855 F.2d 327, 333 (6th Cir. 1988) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The exhibits at issue, identified at trial as Exhibits 34 and 36, were Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (“TWRA”) mussel receipts that were seized by U.S Fish and Wildlife agents during the execution of a search warrant on William Salyers’s property. The receipts list Bruce as the seller and William Salyers as the buyer and contains their signatures. The government sought to introduce the receipts in conjunction with two other previously admitted exhibits, identified at trial as Exhibits 33 and 35. Exhibits 33 and 35 were weight tickets which showed mussels sold to William Salyers. The weight tickets were not dated. Charles Arnold testified that Exhibit 33 was a weight ticket he made out for Bruce for the mussels Bruce sold to William Salyers and that the notation “SLWB” on the ticket referred to washboard mussels less than four inches. Timmy Robbins identified Exhibit 35 as a weight ticket that he wrote and also testified that the notation on the ticket “SLWB” stood for “small lake washboards,” which he explained were undersized shells. The government sought to introduce the mussel receipts to compare the weights listed on the receipts with the weights listed on the weight tickets to show that all weights were the same except for the 7 washboard mussels. Bruce objected to the admission of Exhibits 34 and 36.2 The district court considered the matter outside the presence of the jury. After hearing argument, the district court determined that the receipts were authentic and not substantially more prejudicial than probative. As to authenticity, Fed. R. Evid. 901 provides in pertinent part: Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification (a) General provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. (2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation. (3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated. (4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances. ... “The key question under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 is whether ‘the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’” United States v. Damrah, 412 F.3d 618, 628 (6th Cir. 2005)(quotation in original). Here, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agent Agent John Rayfield testified that under Tennessee law, TWRA receipts must be kept by the buyer for two years. Rayfield identified Exhibits 34 and 36 as TWRA receipts which were seized during a search of William Salyers’s property. Rayfield’s testimony establishes authenticity under Rule 901(b)(1). That is, the exhibits were what they were 2 Pamela and William Salyers also objected to the admission of Exhibits 34 and 36, but do not challenge their admission in their appeals. 8 purported to be–TWRA mussel receipts. Thus, we find that the district court did not err in determining that Exhibits 34 and 36 were authentic. As to whether the mussel receipts were more prejudicial than probative, see Schrock, 855 F.2d at 333, at trial Rayfield compared the weight tickets (Exhibits 33 and 35) with the mussel receipts (Exhibits 34 and 36) and noted that the mussel weights recorded were the same except for the lake washboard mussels. Charles Arnold and Timmy Robbins also compared the numbers listed on the weight tickets with the numbers on the receipts and testified that they were the same except for the lake washboards. Clearly, the receipts were probative in determining whether Bruce sold undersized mussels to the Salyerses. Bruce, however, says that the receipts were substantially more prejudicial than probative, arguing there were discrepancies in the weights and in Bruce’s signature. These discrepancies do not make the receipts inadmissible. Rather, they simply provide an avenue to dispute whether the weight tickets and receipts did in fact correspond, a point that Bruce vigorously argued at trial. While the jury ultimately rejected Bruce’s arguments, that does not mean the district court erred in admitting the receipts. Overall, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the mussel receipts.