41 F3d 607 United States V

8/12/2019 41 F3d 607 United States V

1/19

6/4/2014 41 F3d 607 United States v. M Levine | OpenJurist

http://openjurist.org/41/f3d/607

OpenJurist

Browse OpenJurist

Lear n th e Law

Find a Lawy er

OpenJu rist Blog

41 F. 3d 607 - Unit ed Stat es v. M Levin e

Home41 f3d 607 united states v . m levine

41 F3d 607 Unit ed States v. M Levine

41 F.3d 607

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v .

Gail M. LEVINE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-14 68.

United States Court of Appeals,

Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 2, 19 94.

Ray m ond P. Moore, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Denv er, CO, (Michael G. Katz, Federal Public

Defender, w ith him on the briefs), for defendant-appellant.

Thomas M. O'Rourke, Asst. U.S. Atty., Denver, CO, (Henry L. Solano, U.S. Atty., with him on the brief),

for plaintiff-appellee.

Before EBEL, HOLLOWAY, an d KELLY, Cir cui t Judges.

HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge.

1

Defendant Gail M. Levine w as conv icted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1 36 5(b) of one count of taint ing a

consum er product w ith in tent t o cau se serious injury to the business of any person wh ere the consum er

product a ffects interstat e or foreign comm erce. She appeals th at conv iction. Jur isdiction in the distr ict

court was conferred by 1 8 U.S.C. Sec. 32 31 . We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1 29 1

and rev erse.

2

* On July 8, 1 99 3, Levine wa s charg ed by indictm ent with t wenty -four v iolations of law, including one

Become a Paralegalcdicollege.ca/ParalegalProgram

Earn a Paralegal Diploma in ON. Request Free Information Now!
http://lawyer.com/http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CzxknRQWPU6zNE-THwQH4mIHIDefz980El6eRutABwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ16TqqANg_cCUgegDoAHprLTuA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSEAU_Q4cSUY8ZjcfD3rxM87mdsf3KokZ5xIzTncrcXVDxILzCHD4uZd2hPftYwH_fQ2Ool8hpdNsdNg3WNI5leT2M3p5W64XCWn3ISgfb9BpJvFbwgDZGWa15Hb2vESnIVmSfWjAlz9etNq6Lpo6gUMJlhGW8ZGFN5S582CQO4AsqJC7NeyeAEAYgGAYAH_9LLEQ&num=1&cid=5GgGwplQXzSaJBQUq3ZEjHoY&sig=AOD64_2fjFZB5IQ7tolod9nf-rHKmKNztA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.cdicollege.ca/%3Fadkey%3D00003150http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CzxknRQWPU6zNE-THwQH4mIHIDefz980El6eRutABwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ16TqqANg_cCUgegDoAHprLTuA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSEAU_Q4cSUY8ZjcfD3rxM87mdsf3KokZ5xIzTncrcXVDxILzCHD4uZd2hPftYwH_fQ2Ool8hpdNsdNg3WNI5leT2M3p5W64XCWn3ISgfb9BpJvFbwgDZGWa15Hb2vESnIVmSfWjAlz9etNq6Lpo6gUMJlhGW8ZGFN5S582CQO4AsqJC7NeyeAEAYgGAYAH_9LLEQ&num=1&cid=5GgGwplQXzSaJBQUq3ZEjHoY&sig=AOD64_2fjFZB5IQ7tolod9nf-rHKmKNztA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.cdicollege.ca/%3Fadkey%3D00003150http://openjurist.org/http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CzxknRQWPU6zNE-THwQH4mIHIDefz980El6eRutABwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ16TqqANg_cCUgegDoAHprLTuA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSEAU_Q4cSUY8ZjcfD3rxM87mdsf3KokZ5xIzTncrcXVDxILzCHD4uZd2hPftYwH_fQ2Ool8hpdNsdNg3WNI5leT2M3p5W64XCWn3ISgfb9BpJvFbwgDZGWa15Hb2vESnIVmSfWjAlz9etNq6Lpo6gUMJlhGW8ZGFN5S582CQO4AsqJC7NeyeAEAYgGAYAH_9LLEQ&num=1&cid=5GgGwplQXzSaJBQUq3ZEjHoY&sig=AOD64_2fjFZB5IQ7tolod9nf-rHKmKNztA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.cdicollege.ca/%3Fadkey%3D00003150http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CzxknRQWPU6zNE-THwQH4mIHIDefz980El6eRutABwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ16TqqANg_cCUgegDoAHprLTuA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSEAU_Q4cSUY8ZjcfD3rxM87mdsf3KokZ5xIzTncrcXVDxILzCHD4uZd2hPftYwH_fQ2Ool8hpdNsdNg3WNI5leT2M3p5W64XCWn3ISgfb9BpJvFbwgDZGWa15Hb2vESnIVmSfWjAlz9etNq6Lpo6gUMJlhGW8ZGFN5S582CQO4AsqJC7NeyeAEAYgGAYAH_9LLEQ&num=1&cid=5GgGwplQXzSaJBQUq3ZEjHoY&sig=AOD64_2fjFZB5IQ7tolod9nf-rHKmKNztA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.cdicollege.ca/%3Fadkey%3D00003150http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CzxknRQWPU6zNE-THwQH4mIHIDefz980El6eRutABwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ16TqqANg_cCUgegDoAHprLTuA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSEAU_Q4cSUY8ZjcfD3rxM87mdsf3KokZ5xIzTncrcXVDxILzCHD4uZd2hPftYwH_fQ2Ool8hpdNsdNg3WNI5leT2M3p5W64XCWn3ISgfb9BpJvFbwgDZGWa15Hb2vESnIVmSfWjAlz9etNq6Lpo6gUMJlhGW8ZGFN5S582CQO4AsqJC7NeyeAEAYgGAYAH_9LLEQ&num=1&cid=5GgGwplQXzSaJBQUq3ZEjHoY&sig=AOD64_2fjFZB5IQ7tolod9nf-rHKmKNztA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.cdicollege.ca/%3Fadkey%3D00003150http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CzxknRQWPU6zNE-THwQH4mIHIDefz980El6eRutABwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ16TqqANg_cCUgegDoAHprLTuA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSEAU_Q4cSUY8ZjcfD3rxM87mdsf3KokZ5xIzTncrcXVDxILzCHD4uZd2hPftYwH_fQ2Ool8hpdNsdNg3WNI5leT2M3p5W64XCWn3ISgfb9BpJvFbwgDZGWa15Hb2vESnIVmSfWjAlz9etNq6Lpo6gUMJlhGW8ZGFN5S582CQO4AsqJC7NeyeAEAYgGAYAH_9LLEQ&num=1&cid=5GgGwplQXzSaJBQUq3ZEjHoY&sig=AOD64_2fjFZB5IQ7tolod9nf-rHKmKNztA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.cdicollege.ca/%3Fadkey%3D00003150http://openjurist.org/41/f3d/607http://openjurist.org/http://openjurist.org/openjurist-bloghttp://lawyer.com/http://openjurist.org/#practicehttp://openjurist.org/browse-open-juristhttp://openjurist.org/


2/19


http://openjurist.org/41/f3d/607 2

count of tampering w ith a can of Diet Pepsi in v iolation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1 36 5(b). Only the ta mpering

coun t is th e subject of this appeal.1

3

On the m orning of June 1 5, 1 99 3, Lev ine entered a King Soopers superma rket in Aur ora, Colorado, an d

approached the customer serv ice count er w ith a can of Diet Pepsi from a six-pack she had. Lev ine asked

the clerk at the service counter to open th e can for h er. The clerk opened the can and retur ned it toLev ine. Lev ine then gav e the clerk a check to cash. While the clerk w as cashing t he check, Levine

placed a syr inge contain ing a needle into the open can of Diet Pepsi.2Lev ine handed the can back to the

clerk, claiming that she hear d someth ing in the can . The clerk took th e can, em ptied its contents into a

conta iner, a nd discover ed the syr inge. Th e store ma nag er took possession of th e can, t he sy rin ge, an d

the r ema ining fiv e unopened Diet Pepsi cans. Believ ing t hat Lev ine ha d paid for t he six-pack of Diet

Pepsi, th e man ager h ad the clerk r efund the cost to Lev ine.

4

Aft er lea v ing th e store, Lev ine contacted local t elev ision sta tions. Th ose stations int erv iew ed her an d

her story ran on local news broadcasts in the Denv er area. During t he ev ening of June 1 5, Lev ine

telephoned a nu mber of indiv iduals she knew a nd either asked them t o wa tch for her on TV or asked

whether th ey had seen her on TV. A m ong th ose persons Lev ine conta ct ed w as My ra Young , Lev ine's

ma nicurist. Young told Levine t hat the news stories suggested that Lev ine had put th e sy ringe in t he

can of Diet Pepsi. Later th at sam e even ing, Lev ine aga in contacted Youn g and said that she (Lev ine)

should probably get an attorney . Lev ine then asked Young if she knew an y attorney s and Young

recommended her brother, Dale Sadler.

5

The following day , Jun e 1 6, Levine contacted Sadler to inquire wh ether she had a claim in connection

with th e sy ringe in the Diet Pepsi can . Sadler refer red Lev ine to a priv at e in v estiga tor , A rth ur Baxter.

Baxter went t o the Lev ine residence that same day and signed a contra ct with Lev ine in which h e

agr eed to "inv estiga te ca se to com pletion of claim and cour t ca se." Addendum to Appellee's Brief, doc. 2 2

(gov ernm ent exhibit 43). At t his meeting Baxter interv iewed both Levine and her husband.

6

Later th at day , a v ideotape of the incident cam e to ligh t. Appellant 's Opening Br ief at 7 ; see Addendum ,

docs. 1 -1 5 (exhibits 4-18). The following day , Jun e 1 7 , an arr est w arr ant was issued for Levine, an d she

was a rrested lat er that day .

7

On July 8, 1 993 , a grand jury returned an indictment against Lev ine which included a charge

stemm ing from her placing the syr inge in the can of Diet Pepsi. Count 24 of the indictment ch arged:

"On or about Ju ne 1 5, 1 99 3, in th e State an d District of Colora do, GAIL M. LEVINE, w ith in tent to cause


3/19



serious injury to the business of Pepsi-Cola Compan y , knowing ly tain ted a 1 2-oun ce can of Diet Pepsi,

which was a consum er product th at affect ed in tersta te com m erce. " This count was th e only count that

went to tr ia l. Th e tria l began on Septem ber 7 , 1 993, in the dist rict court. On Sept em ber 9 the ju ry

retur ned a guilty v erdict. On Novem ber 1 2 Levine wa s sentenced to 36 m onths' imprisonm ent on th is

count.3Judgm ent wa s entered on Nov ember 1 8, 1 99 3, and Lev ine filed a notice of appeal on Nov ember

1 9.

8

Lev ine raises tw o issues on appeal. First, she arg ues that as a ma tter of law h er act ions did not constitu te

a v iolation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1 36 5(b). Second, she say s that the district court comm itted rev ersible error

by im properly instr uct ing the ju ry .

II

Sufficiency of the Evidence

9

Lev ine contends that a s a m atter of law her conduct did not v iolate 1 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1 36 5(b), properly

inter preted. Appellant's Opening Brief at 1 3-1 4. Lev ine arg ues that in order for th ere to be a v iolation of

Sec. 1 36 5(b), th e tainted item m ust affect interstate commerce at or after th e tainting. A ppellant's

Opening Br ief at 1 4. She say s tha t th e interstate comm erce nexus was absent for tw o reasons: the can of

Diet Pepsi which Lev ine tain ted did not tr av el in or otherw ise affect interstat e com m erce; and ev en if

the can is presumed at some point to hav e been in th e str eam of com m erce, th e can wa s rem ov ed from

tha t stream before it w as taint ed and therefore Lev ine's conduct w as beyond the scope of Sec. 1 36 5(b).

Id. The governm ent ar gues that all it need show is that the consum er product had an effect oninterstate comm erce at some point, w hether before, during or after th e tainting . Appellee's Brief at 1 8.

1 0

In r eviewing the sufficiency of the ev idence "we exam ine, in th e light most fav orable to the

gov ernment , all of the ev idence together with the r easonable inferences to be draw n th erefrom an d ask

whether an y rational juror could hav e found th e essential elem ents of th e cr im e bey ond a reasonable

doubt. " United States v. Ar utu noff, 1 F.3d 1112, 1 1 1 6 (1 0th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. DeVries v .

United Stat es, --- U.S. ----, 1 1 4 S.Ct. 6 1 6, 1 26 L.Ed.2d 580 (1 99 3). We consider both direct a nd

circu m stantia l ev idence and accept th e jury 's resolut ion of conflicting ev idence and its assessm ent of

the cr edibility of wit nesses. United States v. Dirden,38 F.3d 11 31 , 1 1 42 (1 0th Cir.199 4). If we find the

ev idence to be insufficient, th e Double Jeopardy Clau se requir es th at w e direct a ju dgmen t of acquit tal .

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 21 41 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1 97 8).

1 1

Our rev iew of the district court 's inter pretat ion of th e stat ut e is de nov o. United Stat es v . Martin ez, 89 0

F.2d 1088 (1 0th Cir.19 89), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1059, 1 1 0 S.Ct. 1 532, 1 08 L.Ed.2d 77 1 (19 90). In
http://openjurist.org/437/us/1http://openjurist.org/38/f3d/1131http://openjurist.org/1/f3d/1112


4/19



constru ing t he scope of a stat ut e, we m ust first consider its lang uag e. United Stat es v . Cardenas, 864

F.2d 1 528, 1 534 (1 0th Cir.) (citing Russello v . United States, 464 U.S. 16, 20, 104 S.Ct. 296, 299, 7 8

L.Ed.2d 17 (19 83)), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 909, 1 09 S.Ct. 319 7 , 1 05 L.Ed.2d 705 (1 989). Criminal

statu tes will not be construed to include any thing beyond their letter. Cardenas, 864 F.2d at 1 535

(citing United States v . Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 -48, 92 S.Ct. 515, 522 -23, 3 0 L.Ed.2d 488 (19 7 1 ));

howev er, a cr imin al stat ute should not "be constru ed so strictly as to defeat t he obv ious intent ion of th e

legislatur e." Barrett v . United States, 423 U.S. 212, 21 8, 96 S.Ct. 498, 502, 46 L.Ed.2d 450 (19 7 6)

(citation omitted).

Section 1 36 5(b) prov ides:

1 2

Whoev er , w ith intent to cause serious inju ry to th e bu siness of an y per son, taint s an y consum er product

or r enders ma teria lly false or misleading the labeling of, or contain er for, a consum er product , if such

consum er product a ffects interstat e or foreign comm erce, shall be fined not more tha n $10 ,000 or

impr isoned not m ore tha n thr ee y ears, or both.

1 3

We a re pr esented with tw o questions of interpretation of Sec . 1 365(b). First, what is m eant by

"consum er product" in th is case. Second, wh at is mea nt h ere by "affects inter state comm erce."

1 4

* Consum er Product

The stat ut e defines "consum er pr oduct " as

1 5

(A) an y "food", "dru g", "dev ice", or "cosm etic", as those ter m s ar e respectiv ely defined in section 201 of

the Federa l Food, Drug, a nd Cosmetic Act (2 1 U.S.C. 32 1 ); or

1 6

(B) any ar ticle, product , or comm odity wh ich is customar ily produced or distribu ted for consum ption

by indiv idu al s for purposes of personal car e or in the per form ance of serv ices ordina rily rendered w ithin

the household, an d wh ich is designed to be consum ed or expended in th e course of such consum ption or

use[.]

1 7

1 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1 36 5(g)(1). It is clear th at a soft drink falls within th is definition. However, this

definition does not resolv e the issue before us. Here, "consum er product " could hav e thr ee possible
http://openjurist.org/423/us/212http://openjurist.org/404/us/336http://openjurist.org/464/us/16http://openjurist.org/864/f2d/1528


5/19



mea ning s: (1 ) all diet cola, r egar dless of brand na m e; (2) all Diet Pepsi; or (3 ) the specific can of Diet

Pepsi wh ich Levin e taint ed. We believe th e langu age of th e stat ut e points to th e third an d narr owest

definition.

1 8

Subsection (b) proscribes two ty pes of wr ongfu l conduct in tended to cause serious injury to the bu siness

of any person: (1 ) tainting any consumer product a nd (2) rendering m aterially false or m isleading t helabeling of or conta iner for a consumer product , if in eith er case the "consum er product" affects

inter state or foreign comm erce. Th e use of "consum er product" in the second contex t m akes sense only if

"consum er product" means a specific unit of a g ood. Only indiv idual u nits of Diet Pepsi hav e labels or

conta iners wh ich can be rendered mat erially false or m isleading. A ll Diet Pepsi and all diet cola do not.

To read "consum er pr oduct" to mean all Diet Pepsi or all diet cola w ould render m eaning less th e

proscription aga inst alter ing t he labeling of or contain er for a consum er product. We will n ot constru e a

statu te in a wa y th at r enders words or phrases m eaning less, redundan t or superfluous. Bridger Coal

Com pany /Pacific Minerals, Inc. v . Director, Office of Worker s' Com pensation Program s, United States

Dep't of Labor, 927 F.2d 1150, 1 1 53 (1 0th Cir.1 99 1 ). And it is difficult to ima gine a scenario ma king it

possible to taint all Diet Pepsi or all diet cola.

1 9

We h old, therefore, th at "consum er product" m eans t he specific item which is tainted, in th is case th e

1 2-oun ce can of Diet Pepsi into which Lev ine put th e sy ring e. See United Stat es v . Nu kida, 8 F.3d 665,

66 9 (9 th Cir.1 99 3) (in a case under Sec. 1 36 5(a) court observ ed that "one of the mat erial elements of

the offense defined by section 1 36 5 is tha t th e tam pered product affect interstat e com mer ce") (emphasis

added).

B

Effect on Inter state Comm erce

20

In t he only reported decision int erpreting Sec. 1 36 5, United States v. Nukida, supra,4the Ninth Circuit

considered the gov ernm ent's appeal from a district court judgm ent dismissing, on m otion under

Fed.R.Crim. P. 1 2(b), five counts of a sixteencount indictm ent u nder Sec. 1 36 5(a). Tha t portion of the

statu te prohibits tampering w ith a ny consumer product tha t affects interstate or foreign comm erce

with reckless disregar d for dang er of death or bodily in ju ry , mani festing extrem e in difference t o such

risk.5

21

The defendant, Nukida, wa s a nur se at a m edical care facility in California. She administered

intr av enous m edications to thr ee patients. Two of the patient s becam e seriously ill a nd lost

consciousness from dan gerously low lev els of blood sugar . Th e th ird pat ient also suffered low blood
http://openjurist.org/8/f3d/665http://openjurist.org/927/f2d/1150


6/19



sugar . An inv estigation of the intr av enous bags from w hich the patients' medication w as administered

rev ealed that the bags had been punctu red by sy ringe needles and contam inated with insulin.

Addi tional insu lin-tainted bags w ere discov ered in th e supply room. As a result of th ese contam inat ions,

Nukida was charged with sixteen counts of tampering u nder 18 U.S.C. Sec. 13 65(a).

22

Nukida m ov ed to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 1 2(b), arg uing tha t h er actsdid not affect int erstate comm erce and ther efore th e district court l acked jurisdiction. Th e cour t

dism issed fiv e of the sixteen counts, holding tha t w hen t he I.V. bags were connected to the patients, th e

medications left t he stream of comm erce. 8 F.3d at 66 8. Th erefore th e court held that Nukida's

injection of insulin in to those bags wh ich w ere alr eady att ach ed to the patients did not affect int erstate

com m erce. Id. "[T]he fiv e I.V. bag s 'had reac hed their u ltim ate destina tion and were being consum ed at

the tim e the tam pering occurr ed. Therefore, at that time t he consumer products were neither in nor

affecting int erstate comm erce.' " Id. The distr ict court refused to dism iss th e rem ainin g elev en counts of

the indictment, holding t hat the t ainted medications in th ose bags in t he storeroom rema ined in the

stream of comm erce because the bags had not y et been at tached to patients at the t ime Nu kida

allegedly contam inated them. Id.

23

The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Nukida's motion to dismiss amounted to a premature

challenge to the sufficiency of the ev idence, a ma tter n ot a ppropriate for pretr ial determ ination. 8 F.3d

at 6 69 -7 2. "[W]heth er th e product at issue, in th is case the intr av enous solut ions, had lost its interstat e

cha rac ter is a question of fact for the jur y ." Id. at 67 1 . Therefore, "th e district court jum ped th e gun by

att emptin g to resolv e this factu al issue before tr ial." Id.

24

Here, th e gov ernm ent arg ues that "[t]o establish th e interstate comm erce element, the gov ernm ent

can pr ov e effects tha t occur before, dur ing or after th e prohibited conduct ." Appellee's Brief at 1 8. In

support of this proposition t he g ov ernm ent r elies on t he followin g la ngu age fr om Nuk ida: "section

1 36 5(a) draws no distinction am ong effects that occur before, during, or after the t am pering; it m erely

states that t he product mu st affect interstate comm erce." 8 F.3d at 6 7 1 . Alth ough this languag e

suggests that ev ents prior to tainting ca n serv e as the interstate commerce nexu s, we do not r ead

Nukida to suggest tha t pre-tainting ev ents are sufficient to satisfy the interstate comm erce

requir ement by considering th e mov ement of ingr edients before th e canned product in question wa s

produced. We agree tha t w e should consider any mov ement of the particular canned product tha t w as

later t ainted, from the tim e it wa s produced until it is taken out of interstate comm erce by an end user.

The statement t he govern ment relies on w as part of the Ninth Circuit's explanation of why the district

cour t ha d err ed in holding tha t post-tam pering economic effects could not satisfy th e interstat e

comm erce requirement. The district court had "held as a mat ter of statu tory interpretation that an

impact upon int erstate comm erce occurring after th e tam pering of a product does not a ffect commerce

within th e m eaning of sect ion 1 365(a) ." 8 F.3 d at 67 1 . T he Ninth Cir cu it disagr eed: "there is n o reason

to preclude post-tam pering economic effects." Id. at 67 2 (empha sis added).


7/19



25

The Ninth Circuit did not directly address whether pre-tainting ev ents can satisfy the interstate

comm erce requirement. Howev er, it is implicit in Nukida tha t th ey will not. First, the court stated that

"[t]he face of th e stat ut e rev eals that one of th e ma teria l element s of the offense defined by section 1 36 5

is th at t he tam pered product affect interstat e comm erce." Id. at 6 69 (empha sis added). Pre-tain ting

ev ents are not effects cau sed by th e "tam pered product ." Second, th e Ninth Cir cuit stat ed th at a s th e

"distr ict court recognized, ther e are two way s to demonstr ate th e requisite nexus with in terstat ecomm erce." Id. at 67 0. These two way s were identified as " the govern ment ma y prov e that the

[consumer product w as] 'in commerce' when the alleged tam pering occurr ed.... t he governm ent m ay

prov e that t he tam pering had an actu al economic impact on interstate commerce." Id. at 67 0.

26

Under both of these approaches, the effects on int erstate comm erce occur eith er at th e tim e of or a fter

the t am pering, not before. Pre-taintin g ev ents would not fall w ithin either of these methods of proof and

thu s could not supply th e proof necessar y to satisfy t he inter state com m erce element. Moreov er, th e

Ninth Circuit stated that "whether the product at issue ... has lost its interstate character is a question

of fact for t he jury ." Id. at 6 7 1 . If pre-tainting event s were sufficient, then wheth er a product ha d lost its

interstate character would be irreleva nt; instead the inquiry would be whether t he product ev er had

an interstate cha racter. Thus the Ninth Circuit did not hold that pre-tainting ev ents could satisfy the

interstate comm erce requirement of Sec. 1 36 5(a). In sum, we r ead Nukida to hold that the effect on

interstate comm erce must occur at or after the tainting, and we agree with that v iew.6

27

In any event t here is sufficient ambiguity in Sec. 1 36 5 to warran t our exam ination of the legislativ ehistory . See United States v . Abreu, 962 F.2d 1447, 1 450 (1 0th Cir.1 99 2) (en banc) ("[w]hen the plain

langua ge of a statute does not u nam biguously rev eal its meaning, w e turn to the legislativ e history ."),

v ac at ed on oth er gr ounds, --- U.S. ----, 1 1 3 S.Ct. 2405 , 1 24 L.Ed. 2d 630 (1 993 ); see also Blu m v .

Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896, 1 04 S.Ct. 1541 , 1 547-48, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1 984).

28

We feel t hat th e legisla tiv e history support s our interpretations of Sec. 1 365. Th e Feder al An ti -

Tampering Act w as enacted in t he wa ke of sev en poisoning deaths in th e Chicago area in 1 982 . These

deaths were at tr ibuted to cy anide-tain ted capsules of a widely -used pain r eliev er. See H.R.Rep. No. 93 ,

98t h Cong., 1 st Sess. 3 (19 83) ("House Report"), reprinted in 1 983 U.S.C.A.A.N. 1 257 , 1 257 . Following

these death s there wer e num erous copy cat poisoning s and oth er product tam perings as well as false

claim s that product s had been ta m pered with. Id. Consum er confidence was m ar kedly affected. Id. In

light of these incidents, in December 1 98 2 Congress passed an a nti-tam pering prov ision along w ith

other a nti-crim e measures. Id. at 3 , 1 983 U.S.C.A.A.N. a t 1 258. Howev er, President Reagan v etoed this

bil l. Cong ress passed a subsequent bil l w hich becam e la w on October 1 3 , 1 983. The Feder al A nt i-

Tampering Act, Pub.L. No. 98-1 27 , Sec. 2, 9 7 Stat. 83 1 (1 983 ) (codified as amended at 1 8 U.S.C. Sec.

1365).
http://openjurist.org/465/us/886http://openjurist.org/962/f2d/1447


8/19



29

The House Report sta tes that th e stat ut e is not intended to apply once the consum er product leav es th e

stream of comm erce and tha t th e intent w as to lim it federal ju risdiction to those "instances wher e the

Federal int erest is clear. " House Report at 4 , 1 98 3 U.S.C.A .A.N . at 1 25 9. "Once th e product is sold, an d

assum ing it is not r etur ned to the field of interstat e or foreign comm erce, t he Federal role should end."

Id.7The House bill, H.R. 21 7 4, pr oscribed only acts of tam pering w here th e defendant recklessly

disrega rded the risk tha t th e tam pering w ould cause death or serious bodily in jur y . The scope was thuslimited to the tamperings which posed a threat of harm to hum an h ealth. House Report at 3 -4, 1 983

U.S.C.A.A.N. at 1 258. H.R. 21 7 4 did not r each tam perings intended to har m business but which posed

no health th reat. House Report at 5, 1 983 U.S.C.A.A.N. at 1 26 0.

30

The Senate bill, S. 21 6, did reach such conduct, a nd Congr ess adopted the broader Senate approach.

Howev er, t he Senat e Report , like th e House Report , indicat ed that federal ju risdiction should be limited.

The Senate Report noted that S. 21 6 w as not intended to "cov er tam pering w ithin th e home where th e

bott le is not, or i s not intended to be, pla ced on t he r etai l sh elf. Th us, t he orig inal g oal of S. 21 6 to lim it

Federal ju risdiction t o cases which ar e not more appropriately left to State an d local ju risdictions is

preserv ed." S.Rep. No. 6 9, 98t h Cong., 1 st Sess. 9 (19 83). Thus, the legislativ e history indicates that

the An ti-Tamperin g Act should not be constru ed to cov er all product t am perings.

31

Reading Sec.1 36 5(b) in ligh t of both th e House and Senate Reports leads us to conclu de that th e

requisite effect on interstate comm erce mu st occur at or after the ta inting. Were pre-tainting events

sufficient to supply the interstate comm erce element, t hen the statut e would reach m any tam peringsin the home because numerous consumer products have been in interstate commerce at some point.8

Howev er, th e statu te on its face does not r each all tainting s and the legislativ e history indicates that

neith er th e House nor th e Senat e intended for th e stat ut e to so inv ade the provin ce of stat e crim inal

jurisdiction. Th e only reasonable interpretat ion we see in light of both th e la ng uage of th e stat ute and

the legislativ e history is that th e effect on interstate comm erce mu st occur at or after t he tainting .

32

Moreover , th e interstat e com m erce requir ement is phra sed in the present t ense: "if such consum er

product affects interstate or foreign comm erce." 1 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1 36 5(b) (empha sis added). If Congr ess

had m eant t o inclu de pre-taintin g ev ents, it would hav e ma de m ore sense to use the past or past perfect

tenses (i.e., "affected" or "had a ffected" inter state comm erce). Th e use of these past t enses logicall y would

hav e included ev ents prior to the tim e of taint ing. Th e use of th e present tense, on th e oth er ha nd,

further supports our holding t hat the consum er product mu st a ffect interstate comm erce at or after t he

tain ting . "Affects" suggests th at t he consum er product m ust hav e either a present effect or an effect in

the futu re, an d appears to exclude pre-tainting event s.

33


9/19



In sum, we ar e not persuaded by the gov ernm ent's argum ent tha t th e effect on interstate comm erce

can be one produced before the ta intin g. Congr ess intended other wise and we h old th at the effect on

interstate comm erce mu st occur at or a fter the t ainting, in addition to holding, a s explained earlier,

that "consumer product" in Sec. 1 36 5(b) means the particular item t ainted by t he person commit ting

th e offense.

34

We a gr ee w ith the Ninth Cir cu it that whether the in tersta te com m erce requ ir em ent is m et is a

question of fact. N ukida, 8 F.3 d at 6 7 1 . See also Sunta r Roofing, Inc., 8 97 F.2d at 4 7 8. Th us, it is for t he

jury to dec ide (1 ) w hether th e pr oduct was in intersta te com merce at the t im e of tainting ; w e are

persuaded that the canned "consumer product" is in interstate commerce during its entire commercial

journey if pa rt of th at journey inv olv es m ov em ent across stat e lines; (2 ) if the pr oduct was n ot in

interstate comm erce at the time of tainting, w hether after taint ing it was retur ned to interstate

com m erce; we ar e persuaded tha t if a "consum er product" is taken off the shelf, taint ed, and then

retur ned to the shelf, it would still be in interstate commerce w hen th e tainting occurr ed; or (3 )

whether th ere w as an ac tu al impact on int ersta te com m erce a s a result of th e taint ing of th e pr oduct. If

the jury finds that th e facts before it m eet any of these three criteria, it m ay find that the interstate

com m erce requir ement is satisfied.

35

Lev ine conten ds th at t he facts fail to establish a v iolation of th e law h ere. Howev er, w e believ e there

was su fficien t ev iden ce from which a ju ry could h av e found the r equ isit e connect ion between th e

tain ted Diet Pepsi and inter state comm erce. Mr. Stev enson, t he gener al m ana ger of the Pepsi Cola

facility in Denv er wh ere th e can of Diet Pepsi was produced,9testified that a fter the incident, his

facility receiv ed a flood of calls from concerned custom ers. He said "[t]her e wa s a ma jor effort on m ypart to conv ince th em t o continue t o stock our products on th eir shelv es." 1 0 R. at 6 8. Stev enson

described one specific incident wh ere a public recr eation facility requested that all of its v ending

ma chines be taken away . He also testified that media reports concerning the incident ha d

recomm ended th at bever ages would be safely consum ed if pour ed into a glass before consumin g instead

of being dru nk straig ht from t he can. From t his testim ony a jur y could infer th at sales of Pepsi products

in intersta te com m erce would decline. Thus, Stev enson's testimony would support a ju ry finding tha t

there wa s an actua l injury to the company as a result of the taint ing of the can of Diet Pepsi.

36

We h old that the ev iden ce was su fficien t for t he ju ry to find Lev ine guilty under Sec. 1 365(b), properly

inter preted, and Levin e's first contention on appeal th erefore fails. Of course, for t he jur y to hav e

correctly found Lev ine guilty , it m ust hav e been instructed properly . Lev ine contends it wa s not. We

ther efore tur n to the question of the jury instru ctions.

III

Jury Instructions


10/19



37

Lev ine conten ds th at th e district court err oneously instru cted the jury on va rious issues of law wit h

respect to the interstate commerce requirement of Sec. 1 36 5(b). We rev iew jury instru ctions de nov o to

determ ine the propriety of the instruct ions which w ere objected to at trial . United Stat es v . Mullins, 4

F.3d 898, 900 (1 0th Cir.1 99 3). We do not view t he individual instructions in isolation; rath er, we

examine t he im pact of the instru ctions as a wh ole to determine w hether the jur y was m isled. Id. The

key is wh ether t he jur y ha d an understan ding of the issues and of its duty to determ ine those issues.United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 67 3 (1 0th Cir.1 989 ). We rev erse only for prejudicial error. Id.

38

Wit h respect to ten dered ju ry instr uct ions w hich were refused, "so long as th e ch arge as a whole

adequately states the law , th e refusal to giv e a part icular requested instru ction is not an abuse of

discretion." Sunta r Roofing, Inc., 8 97 F.2d at 4 7 3. Howev er, a conv iction can not stand if there w as an

equiv ocal direction on a basic issue. Bollenbach v . United States,326 U.S. 607, 61 3, 66 S.Ct. 402, 405,

90 L.Ed. 350 (19 46).

39

Lev ine raises four c laim s wit h r espect to jur y instru ctions. We address them in order.

40

* Lev ine claims that th e district court err oneously instruct ed the jury that the interstate mov ement of

com ponents or ing redients of the ca n of Diet Pepsi w hich occur red before t he ca n w as produced could

satisfy the interstate comm erce requirement of Sec. 1 36 5(b). Appellant's Opening Brief at 24 . Thedistrict court instructed:

41

Inter state comm erce mea ns trade, or business, or tr av el betw een or am ong the states. As used in Title

1 8, United States Code, section 1 36 5, t he phra se "affected interstate comm erce" means, in any ma nner

or t o any degree, to mov e, or t o trav el, or t o be inv olv ed in the m ov ement, t ransportat ion or flow of a

consum er product in comm erce between or am ong different states. It is not necessary for t he

gov ernment to prov e that the defendant knew or intended that a consum er product was affecting

interstate comm erce. The gov ernm ent mu st prove bey ond a reasonable doubt, howev er, tha t th e

defendant t aint ed a consum er product t ha t did, in fact, "affect" inter state comm erce.

42

The gov ernm ent m ay meet its burden with respect to this element by prov ing a connection between

inter state comm erce and th e consum er product described in th e indictment . It is not necessar y for th e

gov ernment to prov e that the defendant knew t hat the consum er product or its components had

previously trav elled in interstate comm erce.
http://openjurist.org/326/us/607http://openjurist.org/885/f2d/656http://openjurist.org/4/f3d/898


11/19



43

Appella nt's Open ing Brief, Exhibit A at 7 (em phasis added). Th e defense objected to th e in clusion of the

phra se "or its component s," and ar gu es tha t th e "pract ical effect of th e instr uct ion ... w as that th e jury

was t old that com ponen ts 'count' and will su ffice to esta blish th e in tersta te nexus." Appellant 's Opening

Brief at 26 .

44

Turning to the langu age of the statu te, Sec.13 65(b) refers only to a "consumer product" which mu st

"affect[ ] inter state comm erce." "Com ponent s" does not appear in th e lang ua ge of Sec. 1 36 5. Howev er,

"consum er product" is defined in Sec. 1 36 5(g)(1 )(A) to include an y "food" as tha t t erm is defined in t he

Federal Food, Drug , a nd Cosmetic A ct, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 3 21 . Th at act defines "food" as "(1 ) ar ticles used for

food or drin k for m an or other a nim als, (2) ch ewing gu m, and (3 ) art icles used for components of any

such ar ticle." 21 U.S.C. Sec. 32 1 (f) (emphasis added). Thus, th e com ponents of Diet Pepsi ar e included in

the definition of "consum er product" in 1 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1 36 5.

45

It is clear from t he statu te th at t aint ing t he components of Diet Pepsi is conduct wh ich could constitu te a

v iola tion of Sec . 1 365(b).10Howev er, because we conclu de th at t he consum er product in t his case is th e

can of Diet Pepsi wh ich w as taint ed, and not its com ponent s, the question w e face is wh ether the ju ry

was pr operly instr uct ed that the consum er product was th e ca n of Diet Pepsi a nd did n ot inc lu de the

com ponents of th at ca n.

46

While the com ponent s remained sepa rat e pr operties, th ey could h av e been taint ed and their taint ing in

that condition could be proven t o affect comm erce at t he tim e of tainting or t hereafter, all within the

proper interpretation of Sec. 1 36 5. Under the facts here, however, the u ntainted components cannot

satisfy the requir ement t ha t "such consum er product a ffect[ ] interstat e or foreign comm erce." Any

reference to components in t he jury instru ctions (apart from an instruction th at the components in this

case could not satisfy the int erstate comm erce requirement) w as therefore err oneous. By inform ing t he

jury th at the gov ernm ent did n ot h av e "to prov e that [Lev ine] knew th at th e consum er product or i ts

components had prev iously trav elled in interstate commerce" the district court led the jury to believ e

that the prev ious mov ement of the components in interstate comm erce alone could satisfy the

inter state comm erce element . The likelihood of prejudice wa s especially gr eat in ligh t of the substantia l

evidence admitted at t rial, ov er objection, r egarding th e earlier interstate m ov ement of components

before any taint ing occu rred.11

47

During discussions in cham bers rega rding ju ry instru ctions, the defense objected to an instruct ion th at

read "it's sufficient if the consum er product or th e com ponents prev iously ha d trav eled in inter state

comm erce." The district court agr eed to strike th is instru ction on th e ground th at it incorrectly stated


12/19



the la w. Accordingly , defense coun sel th en m ov ed to strike th e phra se "or it s com ponents" from th e

following instru ction:

48

The gov ernm ent m ay meet its burden with respect to this element by prov ing a connection between

inter state comm erce and the consum er product in th e indictment . It is not necessary for th e

gov ernment to prov e that the defendant knew t hat the consum er product or its components hadpreviously trav elled in interstate comm erce.

49

Appella nt's Open ing Brief, App. A a t 7 (em phasis added).12The distr ict court refused to strike t he

phra se "or its com ponent s," stating "I am going to giv e each side a fair opportun ity here." This refusal to

strike the phrase was prejudicial error.

50

In ligh t of th e evidence adm itted and stressed concern ing t he component s, and the reference to

components in the jur y charg e, we are conv inced that Lev ine was prejudiced. Under th e instru ction th e

jury was fr ee, if i t wished, to find that th e elem ent of intersta te com m erce was satisfied by proof of the

pre-tainting ev ents, based solely on t he components' hav ing ear lier m ov ed in interstate commerce,

before the ex istence of t he "consum er product" that Lev ine taint ed. Under th e pr oper interpretat ion of

the stat ut e explained earlier, pr oof bey ond a reasonable doubt tha t th e taint ed can of Diet Pepsi had an

effect on interstate commerce at or after the time when Levine tainted it was required. See United

States v. Linn, 31 F.3d 987, 99 0 (1 0th Cir.1 99 4) (due process requir es proof bey ond reasonable doubt)

(citing In re Winship,397 U.S. 358

, 90 S.Ct. 1 068, 2 5 L.Ed.2d 36 8 (1 97 0)). This requirement wa s notmade clear in the instructions. The government in effect asks us to sustain the conviction on the

assum ption th at the jur y was properly guided. Howev er, "[a] conv iction ought not t o rest on an

equiv ocal direction to the jury on a basic issue." Bollenbach, 32 6 U.S. at 6 1 3, 66 S.Ct. at 4 05.

Therefore, reversal is required.13

B

51

The second claim of error in t he jur y instru ctions Lev ine ra ises was the district cour t's use of the past

tense "affected" ra ther th an t he present tense "affects" wh ich a ppears in Sec. 1 36 5(b). Lev ine contends

that the use of the past tense mov ed "the critical inquiry awa y from wheth er the ta inted item w as in or

affecting comm erce ... towards a m ore general exam ination of whether an y thing ev er before tra v eled

in comm erce, r egar dless of whet her it w as still doing so." Appellant 's Opening Brief at 28 (emph asis in

brief) . According to Lev ine, th e pr oper la ng uage would hav e been "was affect ing. "

52
http://openjurist.org/397/us/358http://openjurist.org/31/f3d/987


13/19



The specific instru ction in issue was th e four th essentia l elemen t of the offense: "[t]he consum er product

which al leg edly was ta inted was one t hat affect ed in tersta te com m erce. " Appel la nt 's Opening Brief,

Exhibit A a t 5. Th e defense objected to this instruct ion an d requested the followin g alt erna tiv es: (1 ) "The

consumer product item which was tainted was affecting interstate commerce"; or (2) "At the time of

tainting, the consum er product wh ich allegedly was tainted was one tha t affected interstate

com m erce." None of these instr uct ions corr ectly states the law .

53

The instru ctions proposed by th e defense require t he product to be affecting int erstate comm erce at t he

tim e of taint ing. Th is inter pretat ion of Sec. 13 65(b) is too nar row. As noted earlier , th e consum er

product m ust affect com m erce at or after th e time of tain ting . Thu s, the defense instruct ions did not

accura tely state the law, a nd the district court properly refused them .14

54

Conv ersely, the district court 's instr uct ion w as erroneous because it w as too broad. The instruct ion th e

distr ict court ga v e--"[t]he consum er product w hich a llegedly w as tainted was one tha t affected

inter state comm erce"--wa s m isleading because it allowed the jury to find that the int erstate comm erce

element was satisfied by events w hich occurred prior t o the tainting. As noted, we hold that pre-

tainting events cannot satisfy the interstate commerce r equirem ent of Sec. 1 36 5(b). Because the jur y

could ha v e conv icted Lev ine by finding t hat th e taint ed can of Diet Pepsi had som ehow affected

interstate commerce due to the prior movement of the can or its components in commerce, the

erroneous instruc tion was not har m less. Ther efore, t his port ion of th e char ge wa s also prejudicial err or.

C

55

Lev ine claims the district court erred when it failed to instru ct th at t he product m ust be affecting

interstate comm erce at t he tim e of tainting. Appellant's Opening Brief at 2 9-32. As noted abov e, the

product does not hav e to be affecting in terstat e com mer ce at th e time of tain ting a s long as there is a

subsequent effect on int erstate comm erce. Th e district cour t did not err in refusing to giv e this proposed

instruction.

D

56

Lastly, Lev ine asserts that ev en if we determine that none of the thr ee allegedly erroneous instructions

entitle her t o a new tr ial, th e com bination of these allegedly erroneous instr uct ions requires rev ersal.

Appella nt's Open ing Brief a t 3 2-33. Beca use we r ev erse on t he groun ds sta ted abov e, we need n ot

address this claim .

IV


14/19



57

In sum, w e hold that th e jury was improperly instructed on the interstate comm erce requirement of

Sec. 1 3 65(b), a s noted abov e. Because of the im proper instr uct ions, Lev ine's conv iction under Sec.

1 36 5(b) cannot stand.

58

Accordin gly , w e REVERSE the ju dgment of th e dist rict court an d REMAND the ca se for a new tr ia l.

1

The other t went y -th ree count s of the indictmen t relat ed to Lev ine's receipt of va rious Supplement al

Security Income ch ecks. Levine pleaded guilty to three of these charges, an d the r emaining twenty

coun ts wer e dism issed. None of these count s are r elated to or r aised in th is appeal. Th erefore, we do not

address them

2

The needle was atta ched to the syr inge. Lev ine is diabetic and h ad a prescription for sy ring es for insulin

injections

3

As for the three coun ts t o wh ich she pled guilty , Lev ine w as sent enced to 1 2 m onths on coun t 1 an d 51

months each for counts 2 an d 3. Th ese sentences were to run concurr ently with each other and with the

36 month sentence for count 24 , th e conv iction a t issue in t his appeal

4

Nukida w as decided after Lev ine's tr ial, an d, therefore, was not av ailable to the distr ict court

5

Section 1 36 5(a) provides:

Whoev er , w ith reckless disregar d for th e r isk t hat another per son w ill be pla ced in dang er of death or

bodily in jury an d under circu msta nces m an ifest ing extr em e in differ ence to such risk, ta mper s with

any consum er product t ha t affects inter state or foreign com m erce, or the labeling of, or contain er for,

any such product, or a ttem pts to do so sha ll [be guilt y of an offense against th e United Stat es].

Construed in pari ma teria, 2 B Norm an J. Singer, Sutherlan d Statutes and Statutory Construction Sec.

51 .03 a t 1 38. 40 (5th ed. 1 99 2), we believ e "consumer product" as used in Sec. 1 36 5(b) should carry the

sam e m eaning a s "consumer product" thr oughout Sec. 1 36 5. Similar ly , th e phrase "affects interstate

com m erce" wh ich appears in oth er subsections should be giv en the same m eaning as in Sec. 1 36 5(b).


15/19



Therefore, th e statutory interpretation of Sec. 1 36 5(a) in Nu kida is instructiv e for our interpretation of

Sec. 1365(b).

6

We believ e there is a th ir d way by which the in tersta te com m erce requ ir em ent ca n be m et which is

consistent wit h t he t wo th eories spelled out in N ukida a nd discussed abov e. If a consum er product is no

longer in th e str eam of com m erce wh en it is tain ted, but is placed back into the str eam of com m erceafter it is tainted, the int erstate comm erce requirement a nd other elements of a Sec. 1 36 5(b) v iolation

migh t be found, r egardless of whether there is an a ctual economic impact which results from the

tainting

7

See our note 6, supra

8

Al thoug h th e ev iden ce indicat es that here the can of Diet Pepsi nev er left Colorado dur ing its existence,

it is well settled that interstate comm erce can be affected by purely intrastate t ransactions. See United

States v . Darby , 31 2 U.S. 1 00, 11 8-21 , 61 S.Ct. 451 , 459-61 , 85 L.Ed. 609 (1 941 ); United States v .

Sunt ar Roofing, Inc., 897 F.2d 469, 47 8 (1 0th Cir.1 990) (interstate comm erce may include entirely

intrastate transactions where some or all defendants are not engaged in interstate commerce, and some

or a ll acts ar e within a state "if the activ ities substantially and directly affect interstate comm erce")

9

The Denv er Pepsi-Cola facility produces tens of millions of cases of product s annu ally . It is one of the

lar gest bottl ing facilities for Pepsi-Cola in term s of sales and ca se volum e

10

Com m on sense dictat es that the pu rpose of including com ponents in th e definition of "consum er product"

was t o ensu re that th e legislation would reach tam per ing at al l st ag es of th e m anu fact uring process

11

Over a defense objection t he gov ernm ent w as allowed to elicit testimony regarding the int erstate

natu re of the alum inum used to make th e can. Th e defense later requested and received a continuing

objection t o the relev ancy of testimony regarding components. A gov ernment witness testified that the

Diet Pepsi component s came fr om Texa s and Puerto Rico. Th e gov ernm ent, aga in ov er defense objection,

was a llowed to put in ev iden ce v arious shippin g inv oices a nd bil ls of la ding which indicat ed the receipt

of Diet Pepsi com ponents (e.g., a cidulant , salts, aspar tam e, and flav or) at th e Denv er Pepsi facility from

the facility in Ar lington, Texas. Addendum to Appellee's Brief, docs. 1 6-20 (govern ment exhibits 31 -

35 ). Testim ony rega rding th ese docum ents was introduced by t he gover nm ent over defense objection
http://openjurist.org/897/f2d/469


16/19



Moreover , in its brief in th is appeal, th e gov ernm ent stated tha t it "empha sized this pre-taintin g

evidence at trial," Appellee's Brief at 19, and noted that "[t]he evidence at trial proved that the Diet

Pepsi consum er product a ffected interstat e com m erce in m any wa y s. That proof was most pronoun ced

in th e ev idence of the int erstate t ra nsport ation of the ingr edients." Appellee's Brief at 26 . It is th us clear

that the govern ment r elied heav ily on the interstate m ov ement of the components, before the taint ing

occurr ed, to prov e the interstate comm erce element.

12

We a gr ee t hat a cen tral poin t m ade in th is ch ar ge was v al id. As in United Stat es v . Feola, 420 U.S. 67 1,

67 6, 6 84, 9 5 S.Ct. 1 255, 1 259-60, 12 63 -64, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (19 7 5), we feel the proper interpretations

of Sec. 1 36 5(b) do not impose a scienter requir ement wit h r espect to the jur isdictional element of

hav ing a n effect on interstate or foreign comm erce. It is enough that the defendant had t he intent to

cau se serious injury to the business of any person by tain ting th e consum er product--the g ist of the

substan tiv e offense. The scienter r equirem ent of Sec. 1 36 5(b) does not extend to the jur isdictional

interstate comm erce element

Nev erth eless, the port ion of the ch ar ge identify ing th e com ponents, as well as the tain ted consum er

product in delimit ing th e scienter proof required, misled th e jury .

13

The indictment ch arges that Lev ine "knowingly tainted a 1 2-ounce can of Diet Pepsi, wh ich w as a

consum er product t hat affected inter state comm erce." Thu s, the consum er product identified in the

indictm ent is the indiv idual can of Diet Pepsi Lev ine taint ed. Allowin g th e jury to consider components

also ha d the effect of amending th e indictm ent. Howev er, a gr and jury 's "cha rg es ma y not be broadened

thr ough am endment except by the gr and jury itself." Stirone v . United States,361 U.S. 212

, 21 5-16 , 80S.Ct. 27 0, 27 2, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1 96 0). "Any such am endment effected by the court 's instructions would

constitu te plain er ror an d be rev ersible per se." United States v . Phillips, 869 F.2d 1361, 1364 (10th

Cir.1 988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1 069, 1 09 S.Ct. 2074 , 1 04 L.Ed.2d 63 8 (19 89)

14

The proposed instruct ions are a lso inconsistent w ith Lev ine's position th at th e taint ed item m ust affect

interstate comm erce at or after tainting. See Appellant's Opening Brief at 1 4

Print

Email

Short URL:
http://openjurist.org/printmail/562747http://openjurist.org/print/562747http://openjurist.org/869/f2d/1361http://openjurist.org/361/us/212http://openjurist.org/420/us/671


17/19



Learn more about Lawyer.com Membership

Top Local Lawyers

Ann Giardina Hess

Family Law, Collaborative Law,

Accident & Injury, Crim inal, Estate

Lockport, NY see profile

1,363 people like this. Be the first of your

friends.

Lik e Shar e

Rachel Radley Family Lawradleylaw.ca

Exclusively Divorce and Family Law Serving To rontoand the GTA

Transfer TravelPoints

americanexpress.com/canada

Transfer points to frequent flyer andhotel programs? YES. Learn how.
http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=COKgjRgWPU73gOO3_wQGY2IHYAfXZyOQEhZ_YyJgBh9jWqrwBEAEgldXWA1CBu6PAAmD9wJSB6AOgAaON_9wDyAEBqQLMpJolC7OuPuACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJIBT9D04GavkWRE407x1QAJrmESTrd9Wb9I6o7g3JRlPvycZXydAg3KS7jBaqU3FUBBWrV8wV88V7zaK6vih_B8Wg7PxgWjYHJLrFWup5J9BmqqtEKIHOfPqDwp6A0w3c-O3CDwwSNOnEbdNEpsCxZ0fCz9MC_iMmN5xUpw67jgHfKmyectqw-hM1zXN09BVRfU2CfgBAGIBgGAB8XygCM&num=1&cid=5GgKqU54RA_Cy_-d3rRAhgkO&sig=AOD64_2yV5XawfivRgKMnLuFCzGq35VhCg&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/281509052%3B108211377%3Bxhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=COKgjRgWPU73gOO3_wQGY2IHYAfXZyOQEhZ_YyJgBh9jWqrwBEAEgldXWA1CBu6PAAmD9wJSB6AOgAaON_9wDyAEBqQLMpJolC7OuPuACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJIBT9D04GavkWRE407x1QAJrmESTrd9Wb9I6o7g3JRlPvycZXydAg3KS7jBaqU3FUBBWrV8wV88V7zaK6vih_B8Wg7PxgWjYHJLrFWup5J9BmqqtEKIHOfPqDwp6A0w3c-O3CDwwSNOnEbdNEpsCxZ0fCz9MC_iMmN5xUpw67jgHfKmyectqw-hM1zXN09BVRfU2CfgBAGIBgGAB8XygCM&num=1&cid=5GgKqU54RA_Cy_-d3rRAhgkO&sig=AOD64_2yV5XawfivRgKMnLuFCzGq35VhCg&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/281509052%3B108211377%3Bxhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=COKgjRgWPU73gOO3_wQGY2IHYAfXZyOQEhZ_YyJgBh9jWqrwBEAEgldXWA1CBu6PAAmD9wJSB6AOgAaON_9wDyAEBqQLMpJolC7OuPuACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJIBT9D04GavkWRE407x1QAJrmESTrd9Wb9I6o7g3JRlPvycZXydAg3KS7jBaqU3FUBBWrV8wV88V7zaK6vih_B8Wg7PxgWjYHJLrFWup5J9BmqqtEKIHOfPqDwp6A0w3c-O3CDwwSNOnEbdNEpsCxZ0fCz9MC_iMmN5xUpw67jgHfKmyectqw-hM1zXN09BVRfU2CfgBAGIBgGAB8XygCM&num=1&cid=5GgKqU54RA_Cy_-d3rRAhgkO&sig=AOD64_2yV5XawfivRgKMnLuFCzGq35VhCg&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/281509052%3B108211377%3Bxhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=COKgjRgWPU73gOO3_wQGY2IHYAfXZyOQEhZ_YyJgBh9jWqrwBEAEgldXWA1CBu6PAAmD9wJSB6AOgAaON_9wDyAEBqQLMpJolC7OuPuACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJIBT9D04GavkWRE407x1QAJrmESTrd9Wb9I6o7g3JRlPvycZXydAg3KS7jBaqU3FUBBWrV8wV88V7zaK6vih_B8Wg7PxgWjYHJLrFWup5J9BmqqtEKIHOfPqDwp6A0w3c-O3CDwwSNOnEbdNEpsCxZ0fCz9MC_iMmN5xUpw67jgHfKmyectqw-hM1zXN09BVRfU2CfgBAGIBgGAB8XygCM&num=1&cid=5GgKqU54RA_Cy_-d3rRAhgkO&sig=AOD64_2yV5XawfivRgKMnLuFCzGq35VhCg&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/281509052%3B108211377%3Bxhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=Cdrq7RgWPU77eA8iwwQG80ICIDsK9xcoG4pC3uDPAjbcBEAEgldXWA1DZyuuFAWD9wJSB6AOgAY6YodUDyAEBqQLW_Tc0c6-uPuACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJQBT9Ctx8q07BeWGgLmX6E0IvumaUvwWOpJwPbNudExaoo3O740IGKYHgHA5zkyYEyWoDRvS9owvx3bLzDQy5UWMCkNOWzOOfOLu1Wps7tOy00W16sD7Wbu3Ow_8OI6N7Np0HbI7_Ve1qScJqA_zrUs08PUWkvvU6cae84c-helc__ebKn7phFnNnZiTJOMUOx7Do2keuAEAYgGAYAH2ufeKg&num=1&cid=5GhzRs_mCSEIEeuJrd--GroR&sig=AOD64_3FuMig_qYecluuP5-u0QXKWqkhhA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.radleylaw.ca/http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=Cdrq7RgWPU77eA8iwwQG80ICIDsK9xcoG4pC3uDPAjbcBEAEgldXWA1DZyuuFAWD9wJSB6AOgAY6YodUDyAEBqQLW_Tc0c6-uPuACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJQBT9Ctx8q07BeWGgLmX6E0IvumaUvwWOpJwPbNudExaoo3O740IGKYHgHA5zkyYEyWoDRvS9owvx3bLzDQy5UWMCkNOWzOOfOLu1Wps7tOy00W16sD7Wbu3Ow_8OI6N7Np0HbI7_Ve1qScJqA_zrUs08PUWkvvU6cae84c-helc__ebKn7phFnNnZiTJOMUOx7Do2keuAEAYgGAYAH2ufeKg&num=1&cid=5GhzRs_mCSEIEeuJrd--GroR&sig=AOD64_3FuMig_qYecluuP5-u0QXKWqkhhA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.radleylaw.ca/http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=Cdrq7RgWPU77eA8iwwQG80ICIDsK9xcoG4pC3uDPAjbcBEAEgldXWA1DZyuuFAWD9wJSB6AOgAY6YodUDyAEBqQLW_Tc0c6-uPuACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJQBT9Ctx8q07BeWGgLmX6E0IvumaUvwWOpJwPbNudExaoo3O740IGKYHgHA5zkyYEyWoDRvS9owvx3bLzDQy5UWMCkNOWzOOfOLu1Wps7tOy00W16sD7Wbu3Ow_8OI6N7Np0HbI7_Ve1qScJqA_zrUs08PUWkvvU6cae84c-helc__ebKn7phFnNnZiTJOMUOx7Do2keuAEAYgGAYAH2ufeKg&num=1&cid=5GhzRs_mCSEIEeuJrd--GroR&sig=AOD64_3FuMig_qYecluuP5-u0QXKWqkhhA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.radleylaw.ca/http://www.lawyer.com/hess-ann-giardina-1033913.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/hess-ann-giardina-1033913.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/for-lawyers/premium-lawyer-profile.phphttp://www.lawyer.com/james-a-cracolici.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/bari-z-weinberger-basking-ridge-nj.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/franklin-gregory-a-1182639.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/davidson-s-gerald.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/michael-schmitt.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/vincent-criscuolo.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/avik-ganguly.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/robert-brennan.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/harry-konst.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/dominic-saraceno.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/rufus-williams-ny.htmlhttp://www.lawyer.com/hess-ann-giardina-1033913.html


18/19



Steinway & SonsPianos

steinwaytoronto.ca/steinway

Grand, Upright, and Limited Edition

Pianos with Expert Craftsmanship!

Cute MaternityClothes

zulily.com

Shop Cute Maternity Clothes on

Sale at zulily. Up to 70% Off! Shop

Now

Fax Server Softwaregfi.com

GFI FaxMaker for Exchange &

Others. Try Before You Buy!
http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CEt_nSAWPU7_PK5TCwQGd7IHIDafIrIUFh4nDhqIBwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ3faH0QZg_cCUgegDoAG5to_bA8gBAeACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJABT9ADqiH6R_V0VGTVD2hHyHjRNUS9x0W9c-309MWOGJ6E3yrhvsmTlz4x-LYk8Hshjpfu78RTZI3g4f4fQITA1OA8hpAZnyrIS7PgFLSJg4KMKFXZFINlhUJU8X0_kqUk2ulEz-2ZHiMRJnLpI0HpcEOhPoBtpCSt71_pErnRmDy6kTpCAE4wk4EleqMM-1k04AQBiAYBgAevyfAk&num=1&cid=5GjE7KyW20RblAYvmFjaWh93&sig=AOD64_1yvDEMyK91GgQ6pPtR-nt2yVeDJg&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://landfax.gfi.com/fax-server-software-sm/%3Fadv%3D13778%26loc%3D16%26kwd%3D1http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CEt_nSAWPU7_PK5TCwQGd7IHIDafIrIUFh4nDhqIBwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ3faH0QZg_cCUgegDoAG5to_bA8gBAeACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJABT9ADqiH6R_V0VGTVD2hHyHjRNUS9x0W9c-309MWOGJ6E3yrhvsmTlz4x-LYk8Hshjpfu78RTZI3g4f4fQITA1OA8hpAZnyrIS7PgFLSJg4KMKFXZFINlhUJU8X0_kqUk2ulEz-2ZHiMRJnLpI0HpcEOhPoBtpCSt71_pErnRmDy6kTpCAE4wk4EleqMM-1k04AQBiAYBgAevyfAk&num=1&cid=5GjE7KyW20RblAYvmFjaWh93&sig=AOD64_1yvDEMyK91GgQ6pPtR-nt2yVeDJg&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://landfax.gfi.com/fax-server-software-sm/%3Fadv%3D13778%26loc%3D16%26kwd%3D1http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CEt_nSAWPU7_PK5TCwQGd7IHIDafIrIUFh4nDhqIBwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ3faH0QZg_cCUgegDoAG5to_bA8gBAeACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJABT9ADqiH6R_V0VGTVD2hHyHjRNUS9x0W9c-309MWOGJ6E3yrhvsmTlz4x-LYk8Hshjpfu78RTZI3g4f4fQITA1OA8hpAZnyrIS7PgFLSJg4KMKFXZFINlhUJU8X0_kqUk2ulEz-2ZHiMRJnLpI0HpcEOhPoBtpCSt71_pErnRmDy6kTpCAE4wk4EleqMM-1k04AQBiAYBgAevyfAk&num=1&cid=5GjE7KyW20RblAYvmFjaWh93&sig=AOD64_1yvDEMyK91GgQ6pPtR-nt2yVeDJg&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://landfax.gfi.com/fax-server-software-sm/%3Fadv%3D13778%26loc%3D16%26kwd%3D1http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CEt_nSAWPU7_PK5TCwQGd7IHIDafIrIUFh4nDhqIBwI23ARABIJXV1gNQ3faH0QZg_cCUgegDoAG5to_bA8gBAeACAKgDAcgDnwSqBJABT9ADqiH6R_V0VGTVD2hHyHjRNUS9x0W9c-309MWOGJ6E3yrhvsmTlz4x-LYk8Hshjpfu78RTZI3g4f4fQITA1OA8hpAZnyrIS7PgFLSJg4KMKFXZFINlhUJU8X0_kqUk2ulEz-2ZHiMRJnLpI0HpcEOhPoBtpCSt71_pErnRmDy6kTpCAE4wk4EleqMM-1k04AQBiAYBgAevyfAk&num=1&cid=5GjE7KyW20RblAYvmFjaWh93&sig=AOD64_1yvDEMyK91GgQ6pPtR-nt2yVeDJg&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://landfax.gfi.com/fax-server-software-sm/%3Fadv%3D13778%26loc%3D16%26kwd%3D1http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=Cyy1rSAWPU9WxFZCxwAHvt4GADevGgplA64OonYwB2tkeEAEgldXWA1CPsIO8B2D9wJSB6AOgAb2GhdwDyAEB4AIAqAMByAOfBKoElQFP0JVpfT-Jp_yAZ6d6jGKGS2GVD__0YXVpcEK1b1-tlxlCO68EVkf7GxQt2hbGMcIV1rz3Wnf8pUKJfgi_kXk0c-U-nmTA-Xl_F76eFI-wbD22_y1gkEzKdvSLS6QC3V5ehizXcxMou2i9lUYWLHZIz78REpOQ3VbEOyPLvLVpdypFDtskPRHOiWZoFIK_vBPUvbRmoeAEAYgGAYAHq_n6Iw&num=1&cid=5GgHEWDY-QL5UXBwf_phs7C4&sig=AOD64_0RT8eSAvIxNnkARRdUusetNlBNzQ&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.zulily.com/baby-maternity%3Ftid%3D7697292_openjurist.org_37593609459http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=Cyy1rSAWPU9WxFZCxwAHvt4GADevGgplA64OonYwB2tkeEAEgldXWA1CPsIO8B2D9wJSB6AOgAb2GhdwDyAEB4AIAqAMByAOfBKoElQFP0JVpfT-Jp_yAZ6d6jGKGS2GVD__0YXVpcEK1b1-tlxlCO68EVkf7GxQt2hbGMcIV1rz3Wnf8pUKJfgi_kXk0c-U-nmTA-Xl_F76eFI-wbD22_y1gkEzKdvSLS6QC3V5ehizXcxMou2i9lUYWLHZIz78REpOQ3VbEOyPLvLVpdypFDtskPRHOiWZoFIK_vBPUvbRmoeAEAYgGAYAHq_n6Iw&num=1&cid=5GgHEWDY-QL5UXBwf_phs7C4&sig=AOD64_0RT8eSAvIxNnkARRdUusetNlBNzQ&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.zulily.com/baby-maternity%3Ftid%3D7697292_openjurist.org_37593609459http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=Cyy1rSAWPU9WxFZCxwAHvt4GADevGgplA64OonYwB2tkeEAEgldXWA1CPsIO8B2D9wJSB6AOgAb2GhdwDyAEB4AIAqAMByAOfBKoElQFP0JVpfT-Jp_yAZ6d6jGKGS2GVD__0YXVpcEK1b1-tlxlCO68EVkf7GxQt2hbGMcIV1rz3Wnf8pUKJfgi_kXk0c-U-nmTA-Xl_F76eFI-wbD22_y1gkEzKdvSLS6QC3V5ehizXcxMou2i9lUYWLHZIz78REpOQ3VbEOyPLvLVpdypFDtskPRHOiWZoFIK_vBPUvbRmoeAEAYgGAYAHq_n6Iw&num=1&cid=5GgHEWDY-QL5UXBwf_phs7C4&sig=AOD64_0RT8eSAvIxNnkARRdUusetNlBNzQ&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.zulily.com/baby-maternity%3Ftid%3D7697292_openjurist.org_37593609459http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=Cyy1rSAWPU9WxFZCxwAHvt4GADevGgplA64OonYwB2tkeEAEgldXWA1CPsIO8B2D9wJSB6AOgAb2GhdwDyAEB4AIAqAMByAOfBKoElQFP0JVpfT-Jp_yAZ6d6jGKGS2GVD__0YXVpcEK1b1-tlxlCO68EVkf7GxQt2hbGMcIV1rz3Wnf8pUKJfgi_kXk0c-U-nmTA-Xl_F76eFI-wbD22_y1gkEzKdvSLS6QC3V5ehizXcxMou2i9lUYWLHZIz78REpOQ3VbEOyPLvLVpdypFDtskPRHOiWZoFIK_vBPUvbRmoeAEAYgGAYAHq_n6Iw&num=1&cid=5GgHEWDY-QL5UXBwf_phs7C4&sig=AOD64_0RT8eSAvIxNnkARRdUusetNlBNzQ&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.zulily.com/baby-maternity%3Ftid%3D7697292_openjurist.org_37593609459http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CF0xwRwWPU43eNNHHwQHe8ICQCPns3bMF0ZuP17cBkqvizC0QASCV1dYDUKjgrZn4_____wFg_cCUgegDoAHXgZPlA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSSAU_QAGViCGQuEmLDrwS68zpT_zz3evHEoSMWp8KrurA5Fz9JJVlEiwIcDLZbTUkPK5DEKJIKPDN7VxNtTb-1R22DnOZMm0KrA6jlrwngxIVPpiS7H-Ei5DkvLuFivlV2GBEyNSmhMgkxroAkiZWf3pM14cuv2ZRsSetSQrodBvYzf4SEw54tWj7U79CbZmGAyEBC4AQBiAYBgAeR_uwa&num=1&cid=5Gik7cWWVGVO37UPRHvAGFEn&sig=AOD64_0Q-VumrWcla-ZLNuFXqDJwTo89pw&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.steinwaytoronto.ca/steinwayhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CF0xwRwWPU43eNNHHwQHe8ICQCPns3bMF0ZuP17cBkqvizC0QASCV1dYDUKjgrZn4_____wFg_cCUgegDoAHXgZPlA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSSAU_QAGViCGQuEmLDrwS68zpT_zz3evHEoSMWp8KrurA5Fz9JJVlEiwIcDLZbTUkPK5DEKJIKPDN7VxNtTb-1R22DnOZMm0KrA6jlrwngxIVPpiS7H-Ei5DkvLuFivlV2GBEyNSmhMgkxroAkiZWf3pM14cuv2ZRsSetSQrodBvYzf4SEw54tWj7U79CbZmGAyEBC4AQBiAYBgAeR_uwa&num=1&cid=5Gik7cWWVGVO37UPRHvAGFEn&sig=AOD64_0Q-VumrWcla-ZLNuFXqDJwTo89pw&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.steinwaytoronto.ca/steinwayhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CF0xwRwWPU43eNNHHwQHe8ICQCPns3bMF0ZuP17cBkqvizC0QASCV1dYDUKjgrZn4_____wFg_cCUgegDoAHXgZPlA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSSAU_QAGViCGQuEmLDrwS68zpT_zz3evHEoSMWp8KrurA5Fz9JJVlEiwIcDLZbTUkPK5DEKJIKPDN7VxNtTb-1R22DnOZMm0KrA6jlrwngxIVPpiS7H-Ei5DkvLuFivlV2GBEyNSmhMgkxroAkiZWf3pM14cuv2ZRsSetSQrodBvYzf4SEw54tWj7U79CbZmGAyEBC4AQBiAYBgAeR_uwa&num=1&cid=5Gik7cWWVGVO37UPRHvAGFEn&sig=AOD64_0Q-VumrWcla-ZLNuFXqDJwTo89pw&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.steinwaytoronto.ca/steinwayhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CF0xwRwWPU43eNNHHwQHe8ICQCPns3bMF0ZuP17cBkqvizC0QASCV1dYDUKjgrZn4_____wFg_cCUgegDoAHXgZPlA8gBAakCzKSaJQuzrj7gAgCoAwHIA58EqgSSAU_QAGViCGQuEmLDrwS68zpT_zz3evHEoSMWp8KrurA5Fz9JJVlEiwIcDLZbTUkPK5DEKJIKPDN7VxNtTb-1R22DnOZMm0KrA6jlrwngxIVPpiS7H-Ei5DkvLuFivlV2GBEyNSmhMgkxroAkiZWf3pM14cuv2ZRsSetSQrodBvYzf4SEw54tWj7U79CbZmGAyEBC4AQBiAYBgAeR_uwa&num=1&cid=5Gik7cWWVGVO37UPRHvAGFEn&sig=AOD64_0Q-VumrWcla-ZLNuFXqDJwTo89pw&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.steinwaytoronto.ca/steinway


19/19


Ar eas of Law in ,

PRACTICE AREAS

Accidents & Injuries Em ploy ment

Bankruptcy & Debt Family & Estates

Business Gov ernm ent

Consum er Protection Litigation

Crim inal Law Real Estate

BROWSE OPENJURIST

Home41 f3d 607 united states v . m levine

Home

Browse OpenJurist

Learn the Law

Terms of Use

Cheap Home EnergySavers

saferwholesale.com

Works For All Homes & Condos.

Money Back Guarantee. Order

Online!
http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CrmoESQWPU5uVD_OxwAHHlYHYA8yImr0DpL29gx7AjbcBEAEgldXWA1Dyo-7T-_____8BYP3AlIHoA6AB6P6J8wPIAQHgAgCoAwHIA58EqgSPAU_QjT7hxlx8cnrHhxpeYp0Mmlp0a9vq98Nrnnn5es0v931o9teMTyzx_YKHzfOII5x6hEnueIxq0jkxPIxfLcr_m7HZIxb0XYqsFcYFS6XOaK7qpGeujBhV8nkHY90rB722WkPVO2CRkeAUsCrKDWVoFtXNRvAyzV4z8QFeys0x1Cnt7fLFhwRRqnenlMuE4AQBiAYBgAeAgfYM&num=1&cid=5Ggg-2XZ_zVmGc_vYD_RC2Ki&sig=AOD64_2qYwv0782WoBb24RgU-1WYlldRdA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.saferwholesale.com/category-s/64.htmhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CrmoESQWPU5uVD_OxwAHHlYHYA8yImr0DpL29gx7AjbcBEAEgldXWA1Dyo-7T-_____8BYP3AlIHoA6AB6P6J8wPIAQHgAgCoAwHIA58EqgSPAU_QjT7hxlx8cnrHhxpeYp0Mmlp0a9vq98Nrnnn5es0v931o9teMTyzx_YKHzfOII5x6hEnueIxq0jkxPIxfLcr_m7HZIxb0XYqsFcYFS6XOaK7qpGeujBhV8nkHY90rB722WkPVO2CRkeAUsCrKDWVoFtXNRvAyzV4z8QFeys0x1Cnt7fLFhwRRqnenlMuE4AQBiAYBgAeAgfYM&num=1&cid=5Ggg-2XZ_zVmGc_vYD_RC2Ki&sig=AOD64_2qYwv0782WoBb24RgU-1WYlldRdA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.saferwholesale.com/category-s/64.htmhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CrmoESQWPU5uVD_OxwAHHlYHYA8yImr0DpL29gx7AjbcBEAEgldXWA1Dyo-7T-_____8BYP3AlIHoA6AB6P6J8wPIAQHgAgCoAwHIA58EqgSPAU_QjT7hxlx8cnrHhxpeYp0Mmlp0a9vq98Nrnnn5es0v931o9teMTyzx_YKHzfOII5x6hEnueIxq0jkxPIxfLcr_m7HZIxb0XYqsFcYFS6XOaK7qpGeujBhV8nkHY90rB722WkPVO2CRkeAUsCrKDWVoFtXNRvAyzV4z8QFeys0x1Cnt7fLFhwRRqnenlMuE4AQBiAYBgAeAgfYM&num=1&cid=5Ggg-2XZ_zVmGc_vYD_RC2Ki&sig=AOD64_2qYwv0782WoBb24RgU-1WYlldRdA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.saferwholesale.com/category-s/64.htmhttp://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CrmoESQWPU5uVD_OxwAHHlYHYA8yImr0DpL29gx7AjbcBEAEgldXWA1Dyo-7T-_____8BYP3AlIHoA6AB6P6J8wPIAQHgAgCoAwHIA58EqgSPAU_QjT7hxlx8cnrHhxpeYp0Mmlp0a9vq98Nrnnn5es0v931o9teMTyzx_YKHzfOII5x6hEnueIxq0jkxPIxfLcr_m7HZIxb0XYqsFcYFS6XOaK7qpGeujBhV8nkHY90rB722WkPVO2CRkeAUsCrKDWVoFtXNRvAyzV4z8QFeys0x1Cnt7fLFhwRRqnenlMuE4AQBiAYBgAeAgfYM&num=1&cid=5Ggg-2XZ_zVmGc_vYD_RC2Ki&sig=AOD64_2qYwv0782WoBb24RgU-1WYlldRdA&client=ca-pub-1426947767363811&adurl=http://www.saferwholesale.com/category-s/64.htmhttp://openjurist.org/terms-of-usehttp://openjurist.org/#practicehttp://openjurist.org/browse-openjuristhttp://openjurist.org/http://openjurist.org/41/f3d/607http://openjurist.org/http://openjurist.org/?pa=Real-Estate#practicehttp://openjurist.org/?pa=Criminal-Law#practicehttp://openjurist.org/?pa=Litigation#practicehttp://openjurist.org/?pa=Consumer-Protection#practicehttp://openjurist.org/?pa=Government#practicehttp://openjurist.org/?pa=Business#practicehttp://openjurist.org/?pa=Family-Estates#practicehttp://openjurist.org/?pa=Bankruptcy-Debt#practicehttp://openjurist.org/?pa=Employment#practicehttp://openjurist.org/?pa=Accidents-Injuries#practice

41 F3d 607 United States V

Documents

Transcript of 41 F3d 607 United States V