Court Opinion

ID: 9412292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 00:00:33.85165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:38.096896
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30357     Document: 00516838549         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/28/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                ____________                                 FILED
                                                                         July 28, 2023
                                  No. 22-30357                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                ____________                                 Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                            Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                      versus

   William E. Holdman,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 3:21-CR-259-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge:
          A magistrate judge found the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting
   others in hunting over bait and hunting over a baited area, both in violation
   of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The district court affirmed the conviction,
   fine, and one-year term of probation. We also AFFIRM.

              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         William E. Holdman is a deer farmer in Louisiana. He has been an
   avid hunter since he was a child and is about 70-years old today. The
Case: 22-30357      Document: 00516838549          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                    No. 22-30357

   following comes from testimony in the bench trial that was held regarding the
   charges against Holdman.
          Holdman is the owner and operator of a 1,200-acre deer farm called
   Elam Woods Whitetails. The farm is comprised of two operations that are
   separately licensed and regulated through the Louisiana Department of
   Agriculture. Holdman operates a wildlife preserve of over 250 acres and a
   55-acre deer breeding facility. In order to breed profitably, Holdman testified
   that he enhances the deer’s genetics through nutrition consisting of “green
   material,” which allows the deer’s digestive system to work optimally. The
   green material consists of “fresh leaves or fodder or hay.” Holdman plants
   and harvests fodder — “the new growth off of a seed” that contains the most
   nutrition — continuously throughout the year. Holdman distributes seeds at
   a rate of approximately 120 pounds per acre, and depending on moisture
   conditions at the time of planting, the seeds will begin to germinate after five
   to seven to ten days. According to Holdman, he “broadcast[ed],” or
   mechanically scattered, wheat seed on August 17, 2018.
          In Louisiana in 2018, mourning dove hunting season began on
   September 1. Two weeks before then, agents from the Louisiana Department
   of Wildlife and Fisheries (“LDWF”) were flying a plane overhead, searching
   for illegal baiting setups as the dove season approached. LDWF Sergeant
   Kirk Hatten testified that planting seed prior to the Louisiana state
   recommendations for planting is indicative of a baited field.
          Sergeant Hatten, and other LDWF agents, walked onto Holdman’s
   property to investigate what they suspected to be a baited area after the aerial
   surveillance. The agents observed recently mown grass and broadcasted
   seeds along the gravel road leading to the freshly disced field. In the field,
   agents saw wheat seed broadcasted across the freshly disced area. The wheat
   seed was uncovered and exposed on the top of the ground, referred to as

                                          2
Case: 22-30357      Document: 00516838549           Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                     No. 22-30357

   “top-sown.”      That ran counter to the state’s extension service’s
   recommendations for growing wheat.
          Agents also discovered a thicket-like brush area in the middle of the
   tilled field, directly across from an artificial power line. Prior to leaving the
   area, agents collected samples of the wheat seed, took photographs of the
   brush-hide, and set up a “PlotWatcher” camera to monitor ongoing activity.
   On August 29, agents returned to Holdman’s field. After inspecting the field
   and reviewing the footage from the PlotWatcher, agents noticed Holdman
   had broadcasted more wheat seed, which was again left exposed.
          On September 1, opening day for dove season, agents returned to
   Holdman’s deer farm and watched Holdman and two others during their
   hunt. After the men finished their hunt, Sergeant Hatten approached
   Holdman and confronted him with the PlotWatcher evidence of baiting his
   field. When Holdman stated he was growing a food plot to attract deer,
   Sergeant Hatten inquired why he had not covered the seed, to which
   Holdman responded that he was waiting on rain to cover the seed. Holdman
   admitted that he hoped the doves would land on his artificial power line and
   “get a bite of wheat.”
          Regulations promulgated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
   (“MBTA”) offer a limited safe harbor provision, which states that seed or
   grain scattered “solely as the result of a normal agricultural operation” does
   not make a field a “baited area.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i)(2). Dr. Donald P.
   Reed, professor emeritus at the Louisiana State University (“LSU”)
   Agricultural Center and a wildlife extension specialist, testified that the
   regulations specify that broadcasting is part of a “normal agricultural
   operation” only if the farming activity complies with the official
   recommendations of State Extension Specialists working at a U.S.
   Department of Agriculture-recognized Cooperative Extension Service

                                          3
Case: 22-30357      Document: 00516838549          Page: 4     Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                    No. 22-30357

   Program for the state in which the food plot is located. That means a state-
   run agricultural guidance program operated out of the agricultural
   departments of public land-grant colleges and universities is tasked with
   providing agricultural advice and outreach within that state regarding
   accepted best practices. Louisiana’s Cooperative Extension Service is run
   out of the LSU Agricultural Center, and the Louisiana extension service has
   issued comprehensive guidance on wheat field “food plot” planting in the
   state of Louisiana in three pamphlets: (1) “Managing Agricultural Areas for
   Migratory     Bird   Hunting,”    (2)       “Crops   for   Wildlife   Plantings,
   Recommendations, Establishment and Management,” and (3) “Food Plot
   Plantings for White-Tailed Deer in Louisiana.”
          Dr. Reed, who authored or co-authored all three pamphlets, testified
   that Holdman failed to follow the recommended guidelines for normal
   agricultural procedures in these ways: (1) he scattered the winter wheat seed
   prior to the recommended date of September 1, (2) he left the seed uncovered
   rather than using one inch of soil cover, and (3) he distributed the seed too
   densely, 120 pounds of seed per acre rather than the recommended 80
   pounds of seed per acre. After reviewing images of the area, including the
   artificial power line and brush hide, Dr. Reed opined that Holdman’s field
   was not in line with Louisiana’s Cooperative Extension Service guidelines for
   a wheat field and, therefore, fell outside the MBTA regulations’ definition of
   a “normal agricultural operation.”
          During cross-examination of Dr. Reed, Holdman’s counsel
   introduced a one-page summary chart of Mississippi’s Cooperative Extension
   Service guidance, titled “Wildlife Food Plot Planting Guide for the
   Southeast.” This summary chart, issued by Mississippi State University’s
   extension program, recommended (1) a planting date range of August 15 to
   October 15, and (2) a broadcast density up to 120 pounds of seed per acre for
   wheat field planting in the Southeast. The Government later informed the

                                           4
Case: 22-30357         Document: 00516838549              Page: 5       Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                          No. 22-30357

   district court that Holdman had not introduced the complete Mississippi
   State Extension Service guidance. 1
           During his testimony, contrary to what he told Sergeant Hatten,
   Holdman asserted he never intended to cover the seeds because he wanted
   to let the exposed seeds germinate before feeding it to his deer. Holdman
   admitted he installed the artificial power line as an attractive perch for birds
   and admitted to hunting several types of birds off it “all the time.” Holdman
   did not testify that he relied on guidance from any extension service.
           During closing arguments, defense counsel asserted that despite
   Holdman’s intent to hunt birds over the seeded field, the field was not an
   illegal baited area because Holdman’s actions met the MBTA’s definition of
   a normal agricultural operation. According to defense counsel, although
   Holdman did not follow the guidelines promulgated by the Louisiana State
   Extension Service, the MBTA’s safe harbor provision was applicable because
   the Mississippi State Extension Service guidance purported to cover the
   Southeast, generally.
           The magistrate judge rejected Holdman’s arguments, concluding that
   guidance from the Louisiana State Extension Service was applicable to
   Holdman’s deer farm located in Louisiana. Further, even if the Mississippi
   State guidance was applicable, it did not benefit Holdman because he did not

           _____________________
           1
             According to the Government, the complete Mississippi Cooperative Extension
   Service guidance also advised that wheat seed should be covered by at least one inch of soil.
   See Bill Hamrick & Bronson Strickland, Supplemental Wildlife Food Planting Manual for the
   Southeast, in MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE, at 17 (2011 2d Ed.),
   available at http://extension.msstate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/publications/
   P2111_web.pdf. It does not appear, however, that the complete guidance was properly
   introduced into the record, and nothing in the record definitively states the Mississippi
   Cooperative Extension Service’s guidance on soil cover. Ultimately, we conclude that
   Mississippi’s Cooperative Extension service recommendations are inapplicable.

                                                5
Case: 22-30357       Document: 00516838549           Page: 6   Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                      No. 22-30357

   follow the normally accepted practice of placing one inch of soil over the
   seeds.
            The magistrate judge found Holdman guilty of (1) aiding and abetting
   others in hunting over bait and (2) hunting over a baited area, in violation of
   the MBTA, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 and 704. Holdman was ordered to
   pay a special assessment of $20 and a fine of $1,500. In addition, the
   magistrate judge imposed a one-year term of probation, with a special
   condition of no hunting of migratory birds as defined in 50 C.F.R. § 20.11.
            Holdman filed a timely appeal to the district court challenging the
   judgment. Holdman asserted this case was one of statutory interpretation
   and argued the magistrate judge erred in concluding: (1) that each farm is
   covered by the extension services in the state in which it is located; (2) that
   seeds must be covered with soil in order to constitute action in accordance
   with a normal agricultural operation; and (3) that the Government had met
   its burden of proof in light of the evidence and the “proper” interpretation
   of 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(h).
            After a de novo review, the district court affirmed. The district court
   noted that the “critical issue” on appeal was whether the field “was planted
   solely as the result of normal agricultural operations and, in turn, what the
   guidelines constituting a normal agricultural operation are.” It concluded
   Holdman was guilty of hunting over a baited field and no exception for a
   “normal agricultural operation” applied.           The district court further
   concluded that, in order to hunt over the field and avail himself of the safe
   harbor provision, Holdman had to follow the guidelines of his own state’s
   Cooperative Extension Services and that he “did not follow a single
   recommendation from the Extension Service Department of Louisiana.”
            Holdman timely filed a notice of appeal to this court.

                                           6
Case: 22-30357      Document: 00516838549          Page: 7      Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                    No. 22-30357

                                  DISCUSSION
          We first explain why a magistrate judge conducted the trial without
   the agreement of the parties or other common predicate. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C.
   § 636(c). Section 636(a)(3) & (4) grants magistrate judges the authority to
   conduct trials under 18 U.S.C. § 3401 and to sentence for petty offenses.
   Section 3401(a) states that, when authorized by the district court, a
   magistrate judge may “try persons accused of, and sentence persons
   convicted of, misdemeanors committed within that judicial district.” An
   appeal then can be taken to the district court. 18 U.S.C. § 3402. Those
   statutes were employed here.
          Holdman first argues it was legal error to conclude that relevant
   guidance for the safe harbor provision must be provided by the extension
   service in the state where the property is located. Second, he argues it was
   legal error to conclude that a normal agricultural operation required the seeds
   to be covered, regardless of whether the state extension service made such a
   recommendation. Third, Holdman argues the Government did not provide
   sufficient evidence to sustain its burden of proof. Finally, Holdman asserts
   the district court erred in concluding that, in addition to being objectively
   intended for exclusively agricultural uses, a planted field must also be
   subjectively intended for exclusive agricultural purposes.
          Although Holdman has organized his arguments into four separate
   issues, he essentially argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain his
   conviction, mainly because the applicable statutes and regulations were
   misinterpreted. Principally, Holdman argues the MBTA and accompanying
   regulations allow him to use Mississippi’s Cooperative Extension Service
   guidance for the Southeast region, rather than the guidance issued by
   Louisiana’s Extension Service, to take advantage of the MBTA’s safe harbor
   provision.

                                          7
Case: 22-30357      Document: 00516838549           Page: 8    Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                     No. 22-30357

          Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. See United
   States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738, 742 (5th Cir. 2004). When a case is tried before
   a magistrate judge and affirmed by the district court on appeal, “we will
   affirm the magistrate’s findings if they are supported by substantial
   evidence.”    United States v. Lee, 217 F.3d 284, 288 (5th Cir. 2000).
   “Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if any rational trier of fact
   could have found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable
   doubt.” United States v. Morgan, 311 F.3d 611, 613 (5th Cir. 2002) (quotation
   marks and citation omitted). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
   record. See United States v. Jackson, 453 F.3d 302, 308 n.11 (5th Cir. 2006).
          A.     Background of extension services
          In light of the legal argument that the guidance relevant to Holdman’s
   actions could come from Mississippi’s Extension Service — even though the
   alleged offense occurred in Louisiana — we give some background on the
   cooperative extension service programs. That will explain the reach of a
   state’s guidance for what constitutes the baiting of a field.
          The place to start for understanding extension services as they exist
   today is in 1862, when President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the first
   Morill Act. The Act created the land-grant college system, which was a
   system of colleges “designed to promote agricultural and scientific
   knowledge,” and these schools “appealed to a demographic that had been
   ignored by the seemingly elitist professional-centric universities at the time.”
   Michael T. Olexa et al., Limitations to Statewide Reach of Land Grant
   Universities – Florida As A Cautionary Tale, 25 DRAKE J. AGRIC. L. 323, 332
   (2020). This article discusses other enactments relevant to understanding
   the overall history, but we will mention only one.
          In 1914, the Smith-Lever Act “established cooperative extension
   programs at each of the land grant colleges,” the purpose of which was “to

                                          8
Case: 22-30357      Document: 00516838549           Page: 9    Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                     No. 22-30357

   pass on information harbored within the land grant colleges and experiment
   stations.” Id. at 337. The Act provided for

          the “development of practical applications of research
          knowledge and giving of instruction and practical
          demonstration of existing or improved practices or
          technologies in agriculture . . . , home economics, and rural
          energy” to those people not attending one of the state land
          grant colleges. The Act was premised on a cooperative
          extension model, establishing a partnership between the land
          grant colleges and the United States Department of
          Agriculture (USDA), whereby there would be mutual
          agreement by both parties on how to conduct the process.
   Id. at 342 (quoting 7 U.S.C. § 342 (1914)) (alterations in original). Each state
   would choose one of its land-grant schools to allocate the federal funds to its
   extension program.       Id.   Through this cooperative extension model
   framework, “land grant colleges would spread their impact across every
   county of the state in which they were located.” Id. (emphasis added).
          In summary, each state had one or sometimes two land-grant colleges.
   Each state also had a “Cooperative Extension Service” operating out of
   public land-grant colleges and universities, with the purpose of researching
   and providing guidance to citizens regarding, among other areas, the best
   agricultural practices. See 7 U.S.C. § 341.
          Holdman’s insistence that the applicable guidance for how he used his
   land in Louisiana could come from the Mississippi State Extension Service is
   contrary to the purpose and authority of each state’s extension service. A
   state’s Cooperative Extension Service disseminates recommendations that
   govern specific planting, harvesting, and other normal agricultural practices
   for the state. See 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(h). Though we see no prohibition on an
   extension service publishing or otherwise providing advice that it describes
   as being applicable to the region in which that state is located, we reject the

                                          9
Case: 22-30357       Document: 00516838549          Page: 10   Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                     No. 22-30357

   conclusion that such advice would create a safe harbor for someone following
   it. We explain that conclusion next.
          B.     The MBTA and baiting
          It is generally unlawful to kill any migratory bird. 16 U.S.C. § 703(a).
   “Migratory game birds” are defined as “those migratory birds included in
   the terms of conventions between the United States and any foreign country
   for the protection of migratory birds, for which open seasons are prescribed,”
   which includes mourning doves. 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(a)(2). It is unlawful for a
   person to “take any migratory game bird by the aid of baiting, or on or over
   any baited area, if the person knows or reasonably should know that the area
   is a baited area.” 16 U.S.C. § 704(b)(1). Regulations promulgated by the
   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service define a “[b]aited area” as “any area on which
   salt, grain, or other feed has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or
   scattered, if that salt, grain, or other feed could serve as a lure or attraction
   for migratory game birds to, on, or over areas where hunters are attempting
   to take them.” 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(j).
          The limited safe harbor provision under the MBTA states that “[t]he
   taking of any migratory game bird” is not prohibited “over lands or areas that
   are not otherwise baited areas, and where grain or other feed has been
   distributed or scattered solely as the result of . . . a normal agricultural
   operation.” Id. § 20.21(i)(2) (emphasis added). A “[n]ormal agricultural
   operation” is defined as “a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-
   harvest manipulation, or agricultural practice, that is conducted in
   accordance with official recommendations of State Extension Specialists of
   the Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”
   Id. § 20.11(h).
          Holdman does not contest the conclusion that he hunted and killed
   migratory birds, i.e., doves, over a field scattered with winter wheat in

                                          10
Case: 22-30357     Document: 00516838549           Page: 11    Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                    No. 22-30357

   violation of Section 703(a). The question remains, however, whether his
   field was cultivated in the course of normal agricultural operations and, thus,
   was not a baited area under the safe harbor exception.
          Holdman first argues the magistrate judge erred in concluding that
   guidance was limited to the state extension specialists within his state of
   Louisiana, asserting that “State,” as used in 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(h), is defined
   as any state within the union. He further asserts that the plain language of
   “normal agricultural operation” does not include any location-specific
   restrictions. According to Holdman, the magistrate judge’s interpretation of
   the regulations is (1) contrary to the rule of lenity; (2) not supported by case
   law; and (3) contrary to the purpose of the state extension services, which is
   to disseminate information to the public.
          We discuss the rule of lenity first. When interpreting statutory
   language, words are given their ordinary, plain meanings, and the language
   must be enforced unless it is ambiguous. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins.
   Co., 560 U.S. 242, 251 (2010). The Government argues Holdman is taking
   words out of context and is not interpreting the most meaningful phrase,
   “State Extension Specialists.” Both the magistrate judge and the district
   court concluded that guidance from “state extension specialists” was state-
   specific. “Statutory language has meaning only in context.” Graham Cnty.
   Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 415
   (2005). We see the context as being a state-by-state system of extension
   services, tied to the state-by-state system of land-grant colleges and
   universities.
          The regulation at issue is not ambiguous. The guidance from the state
   of Louisiana is the only relevant guidance. The rule of lenity is inapplicable.
          The question then becomes whether Holdman is entitled to a safe
   harbor for his actions because his conduct constituted “normal agricultural

                                          11
Case: 22-30357     Document: 00516838549            Page: 12   Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                     No. 22-30357

   operations.” See 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i)(2). The evidence is that Holdman’s
   field was located near a clean water source, contained an artificial power line
   whose sole purpose was to attract birds, and also contained a brush area
   serving as a hunter’s hide.      These improvements to the field are not
   dispositive nor are they themselves illegal, but we must look at the evidence
   objectively. Holdman admitted to LDWF agents that he did not have a
   normal agricultural practice because he was trying to grow big deer and,
   further, that he knew the artificial power line would attract doves, that in turn
   might be attracted to the water source and the seeds.
          The safe harbor exemption found in Section 20.21(i)(1) is only
   applicable where feed has been distributed “solely as the result of a normal
   agricultural operation.” Id. § 20.21(i)(2) (emphasis added). Holdman does
   not challenge the extraneous improvements evidence and, instead, argues
   only that the Government made its case based on outdated guidance from Dr.
   Reed and did not look to Mississippi’s extension service recommendations
   that Holdman’s planting allegedly followed. Because we hold that the
   Cooperative Extension Service and State Extension Specialists’ guidance is
   state-specific, we find no error in the Government’s use of the LSU
   Extension’s recommendations.
          Holdman also asserts that the district court made its ruling based on
   subjective evidence. To the contrary, the district court stated that an
   objective test must be used to determine what constitutes a “normal
   agricultural operation.” Here, the objective evidence reveals that Holdman
   scattered the seeds, at least in part, to attract doves, particularly given that
   there was a greater concentration of seeds around the artificial power line.
   The reason for scattering the seeds would be immaterial if Holdman had done
   so in accordance with the recommendations of the Louisiana State Extension
   Specialists, but he did not. He instead scattered more seed per acre than
   permitted and did not cover the seed with an inch of soil as required by the

                                          12
Case: 22-30357     Document: 00516838549            Page: 13   Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                     No. 22-30357

   Louisiana recommendations.        He cannot, therefore, establish that his
   planting was conducted in a manner consistent with normal agricultural
   operations for the state of Louisiana.
          As a belt-and-suspenders issue, we address Holdman’s final argument
   that the district court misinterpreted the word “solely,” asserting that the
   safe harbor provision does not require seeds to be planted solely for
   agricultural purposes but, instead, solely in accordance with a normal
   agricultural operation. The regulation provides that the seeding or planting
   must be done “solely as the result of a normal agricultural operation,” Id.
   (emphasis added), not “in accordance with” a normal agricultural operation.
   This suggests plainly that the planting must be a result of a normal
   agricultural operation in order for the regulation to be applicable. Support
   for the district court’s interpretation of “solely” is found in the fact that the
   definition of a “normal agricultural operation” already requires that the
   planting be “conducted in accordance with official recommendations of State
   Extension Specialists of the Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S.
   Department of Agriculture.” Id. § 20.11(h); see also United States v. Webb,
   No. 13–PO–0417, 2013 WL 5935223, at *4 (W.D. La. Nov. 4, 2013).
          Holdman illegally baited his field in the hopes of a big hunt and then
   attempted to craft an after-the-fact argument for why this should fit within
   the realm of normal agricultural operations. The Cooperative Extension
   Service’s recommendations are state-specific. Though we give credit to
   Holdman’s creativity, we cannot find in his favor.
          AFFIRMED.

                                            13