U.S. v. Oliver, 00-3526
| Decision Date | 10 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-3526,00-3526 |
| Citation | 255 F.3d 588 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. GERALD W. OLIVER, JR., APPELLANT. Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
Before Loken, Circuit Judge, Goldberg1 and Bogue,2 District Judges.3
Gerald W. Oliver, Jr. appeals from the denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the charge of knowingly taking an adult bald eagle and knowingly possessing the body of an immature bald eagle. Oliver entered a condition plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal. He was sentenced to two years probation and $5,000 restitution. Oliver is an enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and is a practitioner of traditional Sioux faith. He has held a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. § 668(a), to receive eagle parts since he was fifteen. Oliver claims he has experienced delays of up to three years waiting for parts. He argues these delays led to him illegally obtaining the eagle parts in question.
The district court4 accepted the magistrate court's decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, was not violated by the prosecution of Oliver. In so holding, the district court found while Oliver's religious activities were frustrated by the slow process of the permit system, the government demonstrated a compelling governmental interest in preserving the bald eagle population and that the means employed to reach this end were the least restrictive means available for preserving and protecting the eagle population. Young v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church, 141 F.3d 854, 858 (8 th Cir. 1998) (quoting the codified compelling state interest/least restrictive means test or RFRA).
This Court finds that the magistrate and the district court correctly applied the test set forth in RFRA and reached the appropriate conclusion that the government had met its burden. It is clear that unrestricted access to bald eagles would destroy legitimate and conscientious eagle population conservation goal of the BGEPA. Oliver has argued a one-man exemption should be made, however, there is nothing so peculiar or special with Oliver's situation which warrants an exception. There are no safeguards to prevent similarly situated individuals from asserting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Friday
...curiam) ("[T]he statute and permit system provide the least restrictive means of conserving eagles...."); United States v. Oliver, 255 F.3d 588, 589 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam) The government points to three ways that the permit system advances its compelling interest. First, the system all......
-
U.S. v. Hardman
...that have addressed this issue have agreed that the preservation of eagle species represents a compelling interest. United States v. Oliver, 255 F.3d 588, 589 (8th Cir.2001); United States v. Hugs, 109 F.3d 1375, 1378 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam); Gibson v. Babbitt, 72 F.Supp.2d 1356, (S.D.F......
-
Univ. of Notre Dame v. Sebelius
...that the permitting process itself might have imposed a substantial burden on a religious exercise. Cf. United States v. Oliver, 255 F.3d 588, 589 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam). The process of claiming one's exemption from the duty to provide contraceptive coverage is the opposite of cumberso......
-
United States v. Bertucci
...sentence of “two years probation and $5,000 restitution” for the defendant's violations of 16 U.S.C. § 668(a). See 255 F.3d 588, 589 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam). Oliver is inapposite here, however, given that the defendant in Oliver did not challenge the district court's authority to order ......
-
The role of invidious discrimination in free exercise claims: putting Iqbal in its place.
...Howard Remainder Charitable Trust (In re S. Health Care of Ark., Inc.), 309 B.R. 314, 319 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2004); United States v. Oliver 255 F.3d 588, 589 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc. v. Min De Parle, 212 F.3d 1084, 1093 (8th Cir. (84.) See, e.g......