United States v. Dodd ( 1994 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion











    United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit For the First Circuit
    ____________________

    No. 94-1124

    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    LEON J. DODD,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges, ______________
    and DiClerico, District Judge.* ______________

    ____________________

    Robert Sheketoff with whom Sheketoff & Homan was on brief for ________________ __________________
    appellant.
    Despena Fillios Billings, Assistant United States Attorney, with ________________________
    whom Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for _________________
    appellee.


    ____________________

    January 6, 1995
    ____________________


    _____________________
    *Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.
















    STAHL, Circuit Judge. After a four-day jury trial, STAHL, Circuit Judge.

    defendant Leon Dodd was convicted on criminal charges

    stemming from the shipment of various Iraqi weapons into the

    United States following the end of the Gulf War. On appeal,

    Dodd challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and whether

    18 U.S.C. 545 actually proscribes the conduct for which he

    was convicted. After careful review, we affirm.

    I. I. __

    Background Background __________

    Because Dodd challenges the sufficiency of the

    evidence supporting his conviction, we recite the facts in

    the light most favorable to the verdict. See, e.g., United ___ ____ ______

    States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456, 469 (1st Cir.), cert. ______ __________ _____

    denied, 114 S. Ct. 409 (1993). ______

    On December 5, 1990, Dodd, a First Sergeant in the

    U.S. Army Reserves, shipped out to Saudi Arabia in

    preparation for Operation Desert Storm. Dodd was initially

    assigned to the 173d Medical Group, which was responsible for

    managing health care services. After the war ended, Dodd was

    assigned additional duties involving the inspection of

    equipment scheduled for transport back to the United States.

    Specifically, he was trained by the Customs Service, the

    Military Police, and the Department of Agriculture to serve

    as a designated Customs Inspector.





    -2- 2













    In August of 1991, Dodd ordered a shipping

    container to be sent to his location in Saudi Arabia. Along

    with equipment belonging to his reserve unit, Dodd stored

    three Iraqi RPG ground-propelled rocket launchers and two

    Iraqi mortar tubes with tripods and plates in the container.

    Subsequently, he arranged for the container to be shipped to

    his reserve unit's home post at Hanscom Air Force Base in

    Bedford, Massachusetts. Dodd did not notify anyone that he

    had placed the weapons, all of which were in working

    condition, inside the container. Consequently, the U.S.

    Army, which was the shipper of record, did not declare the

    weapons to U.S. Customs.

    Dodd, whose civilian job was a physical security

    specialist with the 94th ARCOM1 at Hanscom Air Force Base,

    listed himself as the contact person to be notified when the

    container arrived in Massachusetts. Because Dodd was on

    vacation when the container arrived, another individual

    opened it and discovered the weapons. Subsequently, an

    officer from Dodd's reserve unit confronted Dodd and queried

    whether Dodd had the proper paperwork for the weapons. Dodd

    responded affirmatively and then proceeded to create false

    documents that purportedly authorized the shipment of the

    weapons as war trophies. Prior to the container's arrival,


    ____________________

    1. The 94th ARCOM is the Army command for the New England
    area.

    -3- 3













    Dodd had told this same officer that he (the officer) did not

    want to know what equipment was being shipped in the

    container.

    On December 22, 1992, a grand jury indicted Dodd,

    charging him with knowingly facilitating the transportation

    or concealment of illegally imported merchandise in violation

    of 18 U.S.C. 2 and 545.2 Following a four-day jury

    trial, Dodd was convicted. This appeal followed.

    II. II. ___

    Discussion Discussion __________

    Dodd essentially raises two issues on appeal: (1)

    that the government failed to meet its burden in proving that

    ____________________

    2. Dodd's indictment specifically tracked the language of
    the second prong of the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 545,
    which provides punishment for, inter alia: _____ ____

    Whoever fraudulently or knowingly . . .
    in any manner facilitates the
    transportation, concealment, or sale of
    such merchandise after importation,
    knowing the same to have been imported or
    brought into the United States contrary
    to law. . . .

    18 U.S.C. 2 provides:

    (a) Whoever commits an offense against
    the United States or aids, abets,
    counsels, commands, induces or procures
    its commission, is punishable as a
    principal.

    (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be
    done which if directly performed by him
    or another would be an offense against
    the United States, is punishable as a
    principal.

    -4- 4













    the shipment of the Iraqi weapons into the United States was

    "contrary to law" and (2) that the relevant language of 18

    U.S.C. 545 does not proscribe the conduct for which he was

    convicted.3 We discuss each in turn.

    A. Sufficiency of the Evidence: Importation Contrary to Law _____________________________________________________________

    Dodd contends that the government failed to prove

    beyond a reasonable doubt that the Iraqi weapons were

    illegally imported into the United States. Dodd does not

    dispute that a failure to declare the weapons to U.S. Customs

    would constitute a violation of the law, but instead argues

    that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that

    the Army did not declare them. We do not agree.

    In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence,

    "[o]ur task is to review the record to determine whether the

    evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, taken as a

    whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution,

    would allow a rational jury to determine beyond a reasonable

    doubt that the defendants were guilty as charged." United ______

    States v. Torres-Maldonado, 14 F.3d 95, 100 (quoting United ______ ________________ ______

    States v. Mena-Robles, 4 F.3d 1026, 1031 (1st Cir. 1993), ______ ___________

    cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1550 (1994), modified on other _____ ______ ________ __ _____

    grounds sub nom., United States v. Piper, 35 F.3d 611, 614-15 _______ ___ ____ _____________ _____


    ____________________

    3. Additionally, Dodd recharacterizes his second argument as
    a challenge to the district court's jury instructions. We
    reject this assignment of error for essentially the same
    reasons as discussed infra part II.B. _____

    -5- 5













    (1st Cir. 1994)). "In arriving at our determination, we must

    credit both direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt, but

    must do so without evaluating the relative weight of

    different pieces of proof or venturing credibility

    judgments." United States v. De Masi, No. 92-2062, slip op. _____________ _______

    at 16 (1st Cir. Oct. 26, 1994) (internal quotations omitted).

    Furthermore, we do not ask whether the government has

    disproven every reasonable hypothesis of innocence so long as

    the record as a whole supports a verdict of guilt beyond a

    reasonable doubt. E.g., United States v. Vavlitis, 9 F.3d ____ _____________ ________

    206, 212 (1st Cir. 1993).

    At trial, the government introduced documents that

    sequentially traced the shipment of the military container

    that held the weapons from its initial delivery to Dodd in

    Saudi Arabia to its ultimate arrival at Hanscom Air Force

    Base in Massachusetts. Each of these documents referenced

    the container by its military identification number. None of

    them disclosed that the Iraqi weapons were stored in the

    container. Furthermore, one document was stamped with a

    certification that declared to U.S. Customs that all of the

    items covered by that document were produced or manufactured

    in the United States.

    The government also introduced a carrier

    certificate for the container stamped by U.S. Customs that

    did not list the weapons. A customs agent testified that, if



    -6- 6













    the presence of the weapons in the container had been known,

    customs officials would have noted them on this form.

    Clearly, a reasonable jury could plausibly infer from this

    evidence that the weapons were not declared and thus were

    brought into the United States in contravention of the law.4

    B. Statutory Construction __________________________

    For his second assignment of error, Dodd

    principally argues that the relevant portion of 18 U.S.C.

    545 proscribes only conduct that occurs after importation.

    See supra note 2. He reasons that one could not facilitate ___ _____

    transportation or concealment of "merchandise" while

    possessing the requisite knowledge that it had been illegally ___ ____

    imported if that "merchandise" had not yet entered the United

    States. Dodd further contends that because the government's

    evidence established only that he performed actions in Saudi

    Arabia prior to the shipment of the weapons to the United

    States, it was insufficient to sustain his conviction.

    Though Dodd's argument presents an interesting

    question of statutory construction, we need not address it

    here. Assuming arguendo that Dodd has correctly construed ________

    the statute, he nevertheless was also indicted under 18

    U.S.C. 2. As noted, section 2(b) of this statute provides,


    ____________________

    4. We assume without comment that the Army's failure to
    declare the weapons to U.S. Customs would constitute
    importation or shipment into the United States "contrary to
    law."

    -7- 7













    "Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly __ ________

    performed by him or another would be an offense against the _________ __ ___

    United States, is punishable as a principal." 18 U.S.C.

    2(b) (emphasis added).5 A defendant may be convicted under

    this section even though the individual who did in fact

    commit the substantive act lacked the necessary criminal

    intent. United States v. Tashjian, 660 F.2d 829, 842 n.26 _____________ ________

    (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1102 (1981); accord United _____ ______ ______ ______

    States v. Knoll, 16 F.3d 1313, 1323 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. ______ _____ _____

    denied, 63 U.S.L.W. 3414, 3420 (Nov. 28, 1994); United States ______ _____________

    v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 388 (11th Cir. 1993); United States ______ _____________

    v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 535 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, _______ _____ ______

    492 U.S. 906 (1989). The purpose of section 2(b) is to

    remove all doubt that one who "causes the commission of an

    indispensable element of the offense by an innocent agent or

    instrumentality, is guilty as a principal even though he

    intentionally refrained from the direct act constituting the

    completed offense." 18 U.S.C. 2 revisor's note. See ___

    United States v. Ruffin, 613 F.2d 408, 414 (2d Cir. 1979); ______________ ______

    see also United States v. Harris, 959 F.2d 246, 262 (D.C. ___ ____ ______________ ______


    ____________________

    5. Dodd's indictment clearly stated that he was charged
    under both 18 U.S.C. 545 and 18 U.S.C. 2. Moreover, as
    we have noted before, "an aider and abettor charge [referring
    to subsections 2(a) and 2(b)] is implicit in all indictments
    for substantive offenses, so it need not be specifically
    pleaded for an aiding and abetting conviction to be
    returned." United States v. Sabatino, 943 F.2d 94, 99-100 _____________ ________
    (1st Cir. 1991).

    -8- 8













    Cir.) ("Aider and abettor liability may attach to persons who

    are legally incapable of committing an object offense."),

    cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 362 (1992). Therefore, regardless _____ ______

    of whether Dodd's conduct in Saudi Arabia was directly

    prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 545, it was nonetheless punishable

    under 18 U.S.C. 2(b) if it caused actions to occur after

    importation that, had Dodd directly performed them, would

    have been violations of 18 U.S.C. 545.

    As a consequence of Dodd's actions in Saudi Arabia,

    the military container arrived in the United States at Port

    Elizabeth, New Jersey, and was subsequently shipped via truck

    to Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, Massachusetts. Hence,

    Dodd's deliberate actions in Saudi Arabia caused various

    individuals to take actions facilitating the transportation

    of the weapons after their importation. Moreover, had Dodd

    performed these acts directly, he would have violated 18

    U.S.C. 545 because he would have facilitated the

    transportation of the weapons knowing that they had been

    illegally imported. Therefore, 18 U.S.C. 2(b) proscribed

    Dodd's conduct because he caused acts to be performed that,

    had they been performed directly by him, would have been

    violations of 18 U.S.C. 545. In other words, by acting

    through innocent parties who facilitated the transportation

    of the weapons from New Jersey to Massachusetts, Dodd did act

    after the importation of the weapons knowing them to have



    -9- 9













    been illegally imported. In sum, Dodd's actions in Saudi

    Arabia were sufficient to support his conviction under 18

    U.S.C. 2(b) and 545.















































    -10- 10













    III. III. ____

    Conclusion Conclusion __________

    For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's

    conviction is affirmed.













































    -11- 11