Taylor v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-5014,87-5014
• Citation: 848 F.2d 715
• Parties: Stewart A. TAYLOR, d/b/a Taylor Cutlery Mfg. Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 715

848 F.2d 715

Stewart A. TAYLOR, d/b/a Taylor Cutlery Mfg. Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 87-5014.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 15, 1987.

Decided June 6, 1988.

John W. Gill, Jr., U.S. Atty., Greeneville, Tenn., J. Edgar Schmutzer, Leonard Schaitman, Jeffrica J. Jenkins (argued), U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Div. Appellate Staff, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants.

James R. Shipley, Kingsport, Tenn., Stephen Halbrook (argued), Fairfax, Va., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JONES, WELLFORD, and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge.

The United States of America and two Customs Service officers, John T. Simpson and Burns O'Brien ("appellants"), appeal the district court's decision that certain knives imported into this country by appellee, Stewart A. Taylor, d/b/a Taylor Cutlery Manufacturing Company ("Taylor"), and seized by the United States Customs Service, are not switchblade knives within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1241(b) and 19 C.F.R. Sec. 1295(a)(1). The district court's order enjoined appellants from seizing future importations of these knives described as Balisong knives made in the Philippines. Appellants had determined that the Balisong knives at issue in this case were switchblade knives and prohibited from importation.

Taylor asked the court to declare that the Balisong or "butterfly" knives which he had imported and were later seized by U.S. Customs were not switchblade knives ¹ within the meaning of the law and regulations heretofore recited and to enjoin future seizures of these knives.

Among other things, the district court described a Balisong knife as "basically a folding knife with a split handle." It went on to set out its prime use: "[w]hile the exotic knife has some utilitarian use, it is most often associated with the martial arts and with combat ... [and is] potentially dangerous, lethal...." Citing another district court decision involving the same issue, Precise Imports Corp. v. Kelly, 378 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967) (upholding a seizure of certain knives), the district court described it as of "minimal value" and distinguished another "seminal case interpreting the Act", United States v. 1,044 Balisong Knives, No. 70-110 (D.Ore. Sept. 28, 1970) (refusing to support seizure). The district court concluded that "congress intended to prohibit knives that opened automatically, ready for instant use ... [and] was not concerned with whether the knife's blade would merely be exposed by gravity", ... [it] intended 'open' to mean 'ready for use.' " The district court then decided that Balisong knives "do not open automatically by force of gravity or inertia" and had no button or other device automatically to open the knife, and therefore did not come within the meaning of the law or regulation in question. Defendants were then enjoined from "seizing future importation of Balisong knives" and directed to release the knives seized from Taylor.

The government moved to limit the injunction granted to "seizures from the named plaintiff and regarding only knives essentially the same as those which were the subject of this lawsuit," and at the same time filed the following notice of appeal:

Notice is hereby given that the United States of America and John T. Simpson and Burns O'Brien, defendants in the above-named action, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from that portion of the order of November 5, 1986, which enjoins the United States from seizing 'Balisong' or 'butterfly' knives from importers not a party to this action or the seizure from plaintiff of such generically described knives which may factually differ from the knives that were the subject of this lawsuit.

Taylor opposed the motion and then asked for financial remuneration for the seizure and continued holding by the government of the knives in dispute. Sixty-one days after the notice of appeal, the district court denied the motion to modify the injunction.

JURISDICTION UNDER NOTICE OF APPEAL

Appellants' notice of appeal specified only that portion of the district court's order which enjoined them with respect to importers not a party to this action or knives which were not the subject of this lawsuit. In their brief, however, appellants submit the entire judgment to this court for review. Appellants argue that they are not precluded from appealing the entire judgment by the limited scope of their notice of appeal because they contend that its wording is merely descriptive, relying upon Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, 528 F.2d 508, 511 n. 3 (5th Cir.1976), and Elfman Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 567 F.2d 1252, 1254 (3d Cir.1977). Appellants' designation of only a specific portion of the judgment in their notice of appeal presents us with a question of jurisdiction concerning the nature and extent of this appeal. Taylor has responded to appellants' brief in full, and has not challenged the sufficiency of the notice of appeal to the entire judgment, nor has he contended that he has been prejudiced in any way. The parties addressed the entire judgment at oral argument until questioned by this court about the language of the notice of appeal heretofore set out.

We have recently discussed a somewhat similar situation in McLaurin v. Fischer, 768 F.2d 98 (6th Cir.1985). In that case, plaintiff brought federal age discrimination and other constitutional claims in respect to his termination from employment by defendant and also coupled with the federal causes of action, state claims of similar import together with a tortious interference claim. In appealing from an adverse judgment, the plaintiff's notice of appeal referred "solely to the district court's order which embodies the jury's verdict on the federal age discrimination claim; neither the directed verdict nor the dismissal of the state law claims are mentioned." Id. at 101. While acknowledging that "[g]enerally a notice of appeal must 'designate the judgment order or other part thereof' from which the party appeals," we held that "an appeal from a final judgment draws into question all prior non-final rulings and orders." Id. at 101. ²

Despite the ambivalent statements reflected in McLaurin v. Fischer, we decided that even in the face of appellee's objection to considering the other decisions rendered which were not specifically designated in the notice of appeal, there was "effectively preserved for review all of the district court's nonfinal rulings and orders, including the directed verdict and state law claim rulings" because the deficiency was considered a technical error and therefore harmless since appellee "failed to demonstrate any prejudice due to the alleged error." Id. at 102. The question of our jurisdiction to consider an appeal from all of Judge Hull's judgment is not free from doubt. However, appellee was evidently not misled, as he indicated no prejudice by responding fully to all issues raised and briefed in the government's brief on appeal. On the authority of McLaurin v. Fischer, supra, a stronger case for appellee on its facts than the instant case, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to consider the declaratory judgment aspect of this case as well as the breadth of the injunctive order.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

The central issue in this case is whether the Balisong knives seized by appellants from Taylor have a blade "which opens automatically ... by operation of inertia, gravity or both" so as to fall within the definition of switchblade knives set forth in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1241(b) and 19 C.F.R. Sec. 1295(a)(1). Resolution of the issue requires a construction of the statutory language which is a question of law subject to de novo review by this court. While factual considerations concerning the specific knife in question were necessary to the district court's interpretation and application of the statute, we characterize this basic issue as one of law. Our goal in statutory construction is to effectuate legislative intent as reflected in the language of the statute itself and in its legislative history. In Re Arnett, 731 F.2d 358, 360-61 (6th Cir.1984).

Unless it is arbitrary and capricious or inconsistent with the statute or its underlying policy, the construction of the statute by the agency charged with its administration is entitled to substantial deference. Young v. Community Nutrition Institute, 476 U.S. 974, 981, 106 S.Ct. 2360, 2364, 90 L.Ed.2d 959 (1986); Chemical Mfg. Ass'n v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U.S. 116, 125-26, 105 S.Ct. 1102, 1107-08, 84 L.Ed.2d 90 (1985); University of Cincinnati v. Heckler, 733 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (6th Cir.1984). "[I]f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). The reviewing court need not find that the agency interpretation is the only interpretation, but must only ascertain whether the agency interpretation is rational. If the agency's construction or interpretation is a reasonable one, the court should give deference to it. Id. at 843 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. at 2782 n. 11; Young, 476 U.S. at 981, 106 S.Ct. at 2364; State of Tennessee v. Herrington, 806 F.2d 642, 652 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1604, 94 L.Ed.2d 790 (1987); Scott v. Food and Drug Administration, 728 F.2d 322, 324 (6th Cir.1984).

Taylor contends that the decision of customs officials to seize his Balisong knives was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the plain language of the statute. Taylor focuses on the words, "open automatically," contained within the statute and argues that those words mean ...