United States v. Romano
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
STAHL, Circuit Judge.
The felony proviso of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3373(d)(1), outlaws the purchase of wildlife (of a specified market value) the purchaser knows were taken—i.e., captured, killed, or collected—in violation of state law. This appeal presents occasion for us to decide an issue of apparent first impression: whether the same proviso also criminalizes the purchase of lawful guiding and outfitting services to facilitate a taking of wildlife (again, of a specified market value) that, if effectuated, would be in violation of state law. We conclude that the language of 16 U.S.C. §…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Rutledge v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Reno v. KoraySupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- United States v. Sylvia Vasquez-Chan, United States of America v. Julia Gaxiola-CastilloCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. Sotomayor-VazquezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- United States v. James M. FejesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- United States v. Sepúlveda-HernándezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
- United States v. Sepulveda-HernandezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
- United States v. Joey SantillanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.