U.S. v. Miller, 92-10083
| Decision Date | 08 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-10083,92-10083 |
| Citation | 981 F.2d 439 |
| Parties | 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,452, 37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 744 UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbur H. MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Bram Jacobson, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas P. Hannis, Asst. U.S. Atty., Phoenix, AZ, J. Carol Williams, Robert S. Anderson and Robert L. Klarquist, U.S. Dept. of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Div., Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before: BOOCHEVER, NOONAN, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Wilbur H. Miller was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. § 371, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372, 3373, and of specific violation of this Act in selling a saguaro cactus in violation of the law of Arizona. He appeals. We affirm his convictions.
The following facts are the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution:
Undercover agents posed as dealers in cactus plants whose purpose it was to purchase such plants and to resell them to out-of-state buyers. To maintain their cover the agents associated with both legitimate and illegitimate cactus pullers. On April 3, 1987, Wilbur Miller was present in the residence of a notary when the agents were getting certain documents notarized for the legal out-of-state shipment of cactus. Miller offered to help the agents get better organized in the cactus business and handed Agent Mauldin a brochure indicating that Miller was a seller of cactus. Two days later Agent Mauldin and Agent Jarmuz, accompanied by Wilbur's son Ricky, stopped by a residence where Wilbur was a caretaker. In the ensuing conversation Wilbur asked Ricky if he had shown the agents a cactus known as the Morristown Crest. Ricky said he did not know where the plant was. Wilbur took Ricky aside to give him directions. The next day the agents met Ricky for the purpose of going to see the Morristown Crest. Ricky told them that the agents had just missed his father, who had taken Ricky to the Morristown Crest that morning. Ricky and the agents then drove to this location. It was on state land for which no permit to remove cactus had been issued. One of the agents noticed very recent vehicle tracks in the vicinity. Agent Jarmuz agreed to pay Ricky $1,200 if he would pull the plant and deliver it to a California location. Ricky said he wanted his father involved in the deal. The agents paid Ricky $500 as a down payment. The next day Ricky told the agents that he had given $200 of the down payment to his father. The plan to pull and transport the Morristown Crest was not carried out and Ricky told Agent Mauldin later that month that he had sold the Morristown Crest to another buyer.
Two years later, in 1989, Agent Mauldin met with Ricky and Wilbur Miller and discussed the $500 down payment made to Ricky. Wilbur criticized the purchaser of the Morristown Crest for buying it from Ricky although knowing that others had made a down payment on it. The Millers offered to sell Agent Mauldin another cactus plant in order to settle the $500 debt. The offer was not accepted.
On November 7, 1989, Agent Mauldin telephoned Wilbur Miller and in the discussion of cactus that had been transported out of state, Wilbur said, "You know us; we go get the best ones."
On December 14, 1989, Agent Mauldin again called Wilbur Miller and asked if he was interested in providing saguaro cactus for a California buyer. Wilbur said he probably would be. The next day Agent Mauldin drove to Wilbur's residence and was guided by Wilbur and his son Tracy to various saguaros. Tracy described to the agents the workings of the Millers' illegal cactus enterprise. The agents agreed to pay $750 for two saguaros pointed out to them by Tracy. In a telephone conversation later that day Wilbur agreed with an agent to deliver these two plants to California. On January 3 Agent Jarmuz travelled to Wilbur Miller's residence and made a $500 deposit on the plants. The money, at Wilbur's direction, was given to his wife, Irene. Wilbur gave the agents a copy of a state permit giving a fictitious place of origin for the two saguaros. The next day the agents loaded the two saguaros onto their truck with Wilbur's assistance and delivered the plants to California.
On June 18, 1991 Wilbur Miller and his son Tracy were indicted for a conspiracy beginning April 3, 1987, and continuing through January 1989, to violate the Lacey Act. It was charged that part of the conspiracy was for Wilbur and Tracy to dig up saguaros from their wild growing locations in Arizona for resale in California without complying with the requirements of the Arizona Native Plant Law, Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 3-901(C)(1), 3-902(C), 3-904(A). All of these acts charged were alleged to violate 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(B), 3372(a)(5), 3373(d)(1)(B).
In addition, Wilbur and Tracy were charged with conduct involving the sale and purchase of "one saguaro cactus plant (Cereus giganteus)" of a value in excess of $350, by attempting to sell and transport the plant in interstate commerce from Arizona to California.
Wilbur and Tracy Miller were convicted on both counts. Wilbur Miller appeals.
Miller challenges the admission pursuant to the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule of the statements of Ricky Miller, contending that the government offered no evidence that Wilbur conspired with Ricky. Wilbur notes that at the first meeting of the agents with him in April 1987 nothing was said about the theft of a cactus and that it was only the next day, after Ricky agreed with the agents to steal the cactus, that Ricky said he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Warman
..."independent evidence" as simply "evidence other than the proffered [coconspirator] statements themselves"); United States v. Miller, 981 F.2d 439, 442 (9th Cir.1992) (noting that though there must be "some evidence" aside from the proffered co-conspirator statement to establish that a defe......
- Dye v. Commc'ns Ventures Iii, LP (In re Flashcom, Inc.)
-
U.S. v. McDougall
...Lacey Act provisions. See 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a); see also United States v. Borden, 10 F.3d 1058, 1062 (4th Cir.1993); United States v. Miller, 981 F.2d 439, 442 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 966, 113 S.Ct. 2945, 124 L.Ed.2d 693 (1993) ("Consequently, the federal law is not violated i......
-
U.S. v. Berdeal
...conduct. See id. at 1241. "Consequently [the Lacey Act] is `not violated if the state law is not violated.'" United States v. Miller, 981 F.2d 439, 442 (9th Cir.1992). As explained below, all Lacey Act charges based on purported violations of §§ 6821.003(1) and 68B-21.004(1)(a) fail to stat......