U.S. v. Varela-Cruz

Decision Date02 September 1999
Docket NumberCriminal No. 98-294(JAF).,Criminal No. 98-281(JAF).,Criminal No. 98-295(JAF).,Criminal No. 98-283(JAF).,Criminal No. 98-286(JAF).,Criminal No. 98-288(JAF).,Criminal No. 98-278(JAF).
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Oscar VARELA-CRUZ, Defendant. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Manuel A. Martinez-Talavera; Moises Hernandez-Martinez; Elvin Martinez-Cabrera; Adrian Colon-Aviles, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Eddie S. Melendez-Melendez; Hector M. Calderon-Reyes, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose Arturo Lopez-Lopez; Miguel A. Torres-Rivera, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Lauro Melendez-Collazo; Jose Rafael Collazo-Melendez; Hector M. Calderon-Reyes, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jesus Gonzalez-Lopez; Miguel A. Torres-Rivera; Julio Maldonado-Rosado, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Luis Santana-Mendoza; Manuel Ortiz-Garcia; Edwin O. Otero-Vazquez, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

Lydia Lizarribar-Buxo, Hato Rey, PR, Manuel Martinez-Umpierre, Arecibo, PR, for Oscar Varela-Cruz.

Efren T. Irizarry-Colon, Arecibo, PR, for Manuel A. Martinez-Talavera.

Joseph C. Laws, Federal Public Defender, San Juan, PR, for Moises Hernandez-Martinez.

Roberto Roldan-Burgos, Rio Piedras, PR, for Elvin Martinez-Cabrera.

Ramon M. Gonzalez-Santiago, Santurce, PR, for Adrian Colon-Aviles.

Nector Robles-Abraham, Fajardo, PR, for Eddie S. Melendez-Melendez.

Luis F. Abreu-Elias, Hato Rey, PR, for Hector M. Calderon-Reyes.

Efren T. Irizarry-Colon, Arecibo, PR, for Jose Arturo Lopez-Lopez.

Marlene Aponte-Cabrera, San Juan, PR, for Miguel A. Torres-Rivera.

Efren T. Irizarry-Colon, Arecibo, PR, for Jesus Gonzalez-Lopez, defendant.

Marlene Aponte-Cabrera, San Juan, PR, for Miguel A. Torres-Rivera.

Luis F. Abreu-Elias, Hato Rey, PR, for Julio Maldonado-Rosado.

Francisco M. Dolz-Sanchez, San Juan, PR, Laura Maldonado-Rodriguez, San Juan, PR, for Luis Santana-Mendoza.

Francisco M. Dolz-Sanchez, San Juan, PR, for Manuel Ortiz-Garcia.

Rafael F. Castro-Lang, San Juan, PR, for Edwin O. Otero-Vazquez.

OPINION AND ORDER

FUSTE, District Judge.

Defendants, Oscar Varela-Cruz (No. 98-278); Manuel A. Martínez-Talavera, Moisés Hernández-Martínez, Elvin Martínez-Cabrera, and Adrián Colón-Avilés (No. 98-281); Eddie Meléndez-Meléndez and Héctor M. Calderón-Reyes (No. 98-286); José A. López-López (No. 98-288); Lauro Meléndez-Collazo, José Rafael Collazo-Meléndez, and Héctor M. Calderón-Reyes (No. 98-293); Jesús González-López, Miguel A. Torres-Rivera, and Julio Maldonado-Rosado (No. 98-294); Luis Santana-Mendoza, Manuel Ortiz-García, and Edwin O. Otero-Vázquez, (No. 98-295), are charged with conspiracy to adulterate milk by dilution through the addition of water and salt, in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FFDCA"). 18 U.S.C. § 871, 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2). Federal jurisdiction is premised upon interstate commerce as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 321(b).

Defendants move to dismiss challenging this court's federal criminal subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

On August 18, 1999, the Judges in this District jointly held a hearing on the jurisdictional issue. Being away from the District, the undersigned did not participate in the oral argument. Nonetheless, previous to the hearing, we circulated this Opinion and Order to share our views on the subject with the other Judges, who filed a joint opinion yesterday, September 1, 1999. We join in the result reached by the other Judges but under the following analysis.

I. Relevant Background

The Puerto Rico milk industry is regulated by the Milk Industry Regulation Office ("ORIL"), a division of the Department of Agriculture. The basic process by which milk is produced in Puerto Rico is that farmers process fresh, raw milk which processing plants' employees pick up and transport to their sites. Prior to accepting the milk for transport, the drivers perform a number of tests to determine preliminarily whether the milk is of an acceptable quality. The drivers then complete a report which includes the volume of milk accepted and transport the suitable milk to the processing plant. Upon arrival at the plant, laboratory technicians perform extensive testing on samples of the milk in order to ensure its quality and purity in accordance with the rules and regulations enacted by the ORIL. The plants then process the milk, storing it in large cylinders. The milk is tracked from the farm to final distribution using numbers assigned to the trucks and then numbers assigned to the cylinders in which it is stored. The plants further bottle and then distribute the milk for consumption. Upon distribution, the processing plant compensates the farmers in accordance with the volume of milk accepted for distribution by ORIL.

The Prosecution alleges that during the periods specified in the indictment, Defendants adulterated the milk and supplied it to the Vaquería Tres Monjitas and Suiza Dairy milk processing plants. The Prosecution maintains that either the milk producers or the truck driver would obtain a reading of the liters of milk contained in the tanker truck and then take the samples necessary for laboratory testing. At this point, the Prosecution alleges that the Defendants conspired to determine the amount of water and salt which was added to the tanker. The drivers would then record the new liter content and transport the adulterated milk to the processing plants by refrigerated trucks. At the dairy processing plants, Vaquería Tres Monjitas or Suiza Dairy employees perform laboratory tests on the unadulterated sample of the milk and process the allegedly adulterated milk. This further, more extensive testing was done only on the pre-extracted sample. Thus, the samples on which the tests were performed did not represent the actual contents of the tanker trucks. Vaquería Tres Monjitas or Suiza Dairy then supplied the processed, adulterated milk for distribution.

Since the practice in Puerto Rico is not to compensate farmers and producers until after the milk had been processed and distributed, the Prosecution alleges that Defendants were full members of the adulteration conspiracy. Finally, the Prosecution submits numerous receipts showing that during the months alleged in the indictment, Vaquería Tres Monjitas and Suiza Dairy made sales to Airport Catering Services ("Airport Catering"), Sky Catering Services, Inc. ("Sky Catering"), and the United States Naval Station at Sabana Seca ("Navy Station"). The Prosecution maintains that the adulterated milk entered into interstate commerce via these entities.

Defendants, both collectively and singly, move to dismiss the indictment for lack of federal criminal subject matter jurisdiction. The specific allegations are that this court lacks jurisdiction because: (1) there has been no showing that milk provided by Defendants was distributed into the stream of interstate commerce; (2) there is no federal jurisdiction because the jurisdiction presumption stated in 21 U.S.C. § 379(a) does not apply, since it was enacted after the facts charged in the indictment;1 (3) the presumption of connection with interstate commerce is defeated by the facts of this case; (4) the milk was not in the stream of commerce within federal standards; (5) the offense alleged is a crime under the laws of Puerto Rico and should be prosecuted as such; (6) premising jurisdiction upon the salt being in interstate commerce is inconsistent with the indictment; and (7) there is no jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause because there is no showing of a genuine, legitimate federal interest.2

II.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(1)

A motion to dismiss a criminal prosecution for lack of federal criminal subject matter jurisdiction must be presented to the court for analysis and disposition prior to trial. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(1). Since we are not privy to the developed factual scenario that the government expects to present to satisfy the jurisdiction threshold, we will accept all well-pleaded facts as true, drawing all necessary inferences in favor of the government as is customary in motions for judgments of acquittal based on jurisdictional arguments. Cf. Fed.R.Crim.P. 29.

III. Jurisdiction Premised Upon Interstate Commerce

The main contention in all the motions is that this court lacks jurisdiction because there is no interstate commerce connection. Defendants maintain that dairy farmers in Puerto Rico have a standing agreement with the milk processing plants to sell the raw milk after it is tested for fitness. At this point, Defendants contend that any economical benefit to or commerce with the farmers or truck drivers ends. Therefore, Defendants maintain that they were not involved in any activity affecting interstate commerce. We begin by analyzing this issue.

The purpose of the FFDCA is "to safeguard the consumer from the time the food is introduced into the channels of interstate commerce to the point that it is delivered to the ultimate consumer." United States v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co., 376 U.S. 86, 84 S.Ct. 559, 11 L.Ed.2d 536 (1964); accord Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 69 S.Ct. 106, 93 L.Ed. 52 (1948); United States v. Cassaro, Inc., 443 F.2d 153, 156 (1st Cir.1971) quoting United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 696, 68 S.Ct. 331, 92 L.Ed. 297 (1948) (noting that sections of the FDCA are "element[s] of an overall scheme designed to regulate the interstate flow of goods `from the moment of their introduction into interstate commerce' until `the moment of their delivery to the ultimate consumer.'"). As eloquently enunciated by Justice Frankfurter:

The purposes of this legislation thus touch phases of the lives and health of people which, in the circumstances of modern industrialism, are largely beyond self-protection. Regard for these purposes should infuse construction of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT