United States v. Lachman

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

Nos. 03-2274 & 03-2275

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

WALTER L. LACHMAN, MAURICE H. SUBILIA, JR.,
FIBER MATERIALS, INC., MATERIALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Dyk*, and Howard, Circuit Judges.

James D. Herbert, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, Despena F. Billings,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Stephan E. Oestreicher were
on brief for appellant/cross-appellee.
Michael R. Schneider with whom Andrew Good, Matthew Zisow, and
Alan M. Dershowitz were on briefs for defendant-appellees/cross-
appellants.

October 25, 2004

*
Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
 DYK, Circuit Judge. The issue on the government’s appeal is

whether the term “specially designed” as used in 15 C.F.R. § 399.1,

Supp. 1 (1988) (now 15 C.F.R. § 774, Supp. 1 (2004)), is

unconstitutionally vague.

Defendants Walter L. Lachman, Maurice H. Subilia, Jr., Fiber

Materials, Inc. (“FMI”), and Materials International, Inc., were

convicted in the United States District Court for the District of

Massachusetts on charges of violating and conspiring to violate the

Export Administration Act of 1979, Pub. L. 96-72, 93 Stat. 503

(codified at 50 U.S.C. app. § § 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”), and its

implementing regulations.1 The alleged violation consisted of

exporting a control panel for a hot isostatic press (“HIP”) without

the necessary export license required by the EAA and its

regulations. The question under the regulation was whether the

control panel was “specially designed” for use with an embargoed

HIP. See 15 C.F.R. § 399.1, Supp. 1 (1988).

After trial, the district court granted a motion for acquittal

notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal

1
The EAA expired in 1994, was briefly renewed by Congress in
2000, and expired again in 2001. See 50 U.S.C. app. § 2419. Its
provisions have been carried forward by executive order under the
authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50
U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. See 59 Fed. Reg. 43437 (Aug. 23, 1994); 66
Fed. Reg. 44025 (Aug. 22, 2001); 67 Fed. Reg. 53721 (Aug. 16,
2002); 68 Fed. Reg. 47833 (Aug. 11, 2003); 69 Fed. Reg. 48763 (Aug.
6, 2004). The defendants do not make any argument that the EAA and
its regulations are inapplicable due to the expiration of the
original statute.

-2-
Procedure 29(c), on the ground that the EAA regulation and, in

particular, the term “specially designed” as used in the

regulation, was unconstitutionally vague. United States v.

Lachman, 278 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D. Mass. 2003). We hold that the

applicable EAA regulation was not unconstitutionally vague and,

accordingly, vacate the judgment of acquittal. With respect to the

defendants’ cross-appeal, we remand to the district court to rule

on the defendants’ conditional motion for a new trial in light of

our construction of the statute and our decision on the vagueness

issue.

I.

A.

The EAA is designed “to restrict the export of goods and

technology which would make a significant contribution to the

military potential of any other country . . . which would prove

detrimental to the national security of the United States.” 50

U.S.C. app. § 2402(2)(A). The EAA requires exporters to obtain a

“validated license” before exporting commodities listed in the

regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of

Commerce (“Commerce”). Id. § 2403(a). Commerce’s regulations

themselves include similar license requirements. See generally 15

C.F.R. § 372.1 (1988). It is a criminal offense to knowingly

violate or conspire to violate the EAA or its regulations. 50

-3-
U.S.C. app. § 2410(a). Willful violations incur an even greater

penalty. Id. § 2410(b).

Commerce has promulgated a “Control List” of all commodities

subject to export controls under the EAA and requiring a valid

license for export. Id. §§ 2403(b), 2404(c)(1).2 Our concern is

with the Control List as it existed in 1988. In the 1988 Control

List3 each regulated commodity was assigned an Export Control

Classification Number (“ECCN”), indicating the commodity’s

characteristics, its functions, the reasons for its control, and

its export licensing requirements. Commodities not listed were not

regulated by the EAA. Although each exporter was responsible for

classifying its own goods, an exporter could request an advisory

opinion from Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security regarding

whether a particular item was subject to regulation and, if so, its

appropriate ECCN classification. 15 C.F.R. § 748.3(a) (2004).

B.

The defendants in this case were charged with “knowingly and

willfully” violating and conspiring to violate the EAA and its

2
This control list does not include commodities exclusively
controlled for export by agencies other than the Department of
Commerce. 15 C.F.R. § 738.1 (2004).
3
The Commerce Control List was formerly known, between 1988-
1991, as the Commodity Control List. See 56 Fed. Reg. 42824 (Aug.
29, 1991). The current version of the Control List is at 15 C.F.R.
§ 774, Supp. 1 (2004), while the version relevant at the time of
the events at issue here may be found at 15 C.F.R. § 399.1, Supp.
1 (1988). We refer in this opinion to the 1988 list.

-4-
regulations by exporting a HIP control panel to India “without

having first obtained the required validated export license” from

Commerce. (J.A. at 88-89.) The defendants admittedly did not

request or secure an individual license. The question is whether

they were required to secure one.4

A HIP is a piece of “equipment capable of pressurizing a

closed cavity . . . to create equal pressure in all directions

within the cavity upon workpiece or material.” 15 C.F.R. § 399.1,

Supp. 1 (1988). Material exposed to this process densifies, and,

in particular, carbon/carbon material “becomes suitable for use in

rocket components, including ballistic missiles with nuclear

capability.” Lachman, 278 F. Supp. 2d at 73. In 1988, HIPs

“possessing a chamber cavity with an inside diameter of 127 mm (5

inches) or more” (a “larger HIP”) were covered by the Control List

and assigned an ECCN 1312A classification. 15 C.F.R. § 399.1,

Supp. 1 (1988). A license was required for the export of larger

HIPs and all “specially designed . . . components, accessories and

controls therefor.” Id. The reasons for control of such

commodities were “[n]ational security [and] nuclear non-

proliferation.” Id.

4
If the export of a good does not require an individually
validated license, then a general license usually attaches
automatically. See generally, Lachman, 278 F. Supp. 2d at 72. For
simplicity in the text we use the shorthand “license” to refer to
the requirement for an individual license.

-5-
 C.

The EAA and its implementing regulations were adopted against

the background of an international regime for the control of

strategic materials administered by the Coordinating Committee on

Multilateral Export Controls (“COCOM”). See 50 U.S.C. app.

§ 2404(i). COCOM was a “multilateral organization that cooperated

in restricting strategic exports to controlled countries.”5 15

C.F.R. § 772.1 (2004). In particular, COCOM created “a list of

strategic commodities which were to be embargoed for shipment to

Communist Bloc countries” (“COCOM List”). Peter Swan, A Road Map

to Understanding Export Controls: National Security in Changing

Global Environment, 30 Am. Bus. L.J. 607, 619 (1992). “Recognizing

the ineffectiveness of unilateral controls and the importance of

uniform enforcement measures to the effectiveness of multilateral

controls,” the EAA mandated United States involvement in COCOM.

See 50 U.S.C. app. § 2404(i). The EAA export control system was

coordinated with the COCOM regime. For example, when the letter

“A” appeared at the end of the ECCN for an item on the Control

List, it indicated that the classification was “multilaterally

controlled.” 15 C.F.R. § 399.1(f)(2) (1988). The particular

regulation involved here bore a letter designation “A,” indicating

that its source was the COCOM List.

5
COCOM was officially disbanded on March 31, 1994. 15 C.F.R.
§ 772.1 (2004).

-6-
 D.

In 1985 the defendants first contracted with the government of

India to supply a HIP of 18 inch cavity diameter and a control

panel.6 This contract was amended in January 1987 such that

defendants would instead supply the Indian government with a HIP of

4.9 inch cavity diameter, which was unregulated. On the same day

as the amendment, however, defendant Subilia, President of FMI,

signed a letter stating that the subsystems delivered with the 4.9

inch HIP, including the control panel, would have “added capacity

. . . to provide for future expansion . . . to larger vessel size.”

In April of 1988, the defendants shipped a HIP with a 4.9 inch

diameter cavity and an accompanying control panel. Although the

control panel could be used with a 4.9 inch HIP, it was designed so

that it would also control a HIP with a diameter larger than 5

inches, i.e., one that was covered by the Control List. In April

of 1991, the defendants’ engineers connected the control panel to

a HIP with a diameter larger than 5 inches. This larger HIP had

been procured by the defendants from a third-party manufacturer in

Switzerland. There is no contention that a license was required

for this larger HIP because it originated from Switzerland.

6
The evidence set forth below was contested on a number of
points. On review from a judgment of acquittal, we evaluate the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. United
States v. Pimental, 380 F.3d 575, 584 (1st Cir. 2004). The facts
as stated are based on assumptions favoring the United States.

-7-
 In 1993 the government charged the defendants with “knowingly

and willfully conspir[ing] and agree[ing] with each other . . . to

export and cause to be exported from the United States” the control

panel, without the required license. The government argued that

the control panel required a validated license because it qualified

as “specially designed . . . accessories and controls” for an

embargoed larger HIP.

At the trial, on the “specially designed” question, the

government presented evidence that defendant Subilia had instructed

FMI’s engineers to base the control panel’s design on that of a

panel used to operate 20 inch HIPs. The government also presented

evidence that the control panel which was exported had five heating

zone controllers and that the 4.9 inch HIP defendants exported only

had two heating zones. The government showed as well that the

defendants had ordered a switch for the control panel, which

permitted the disabling of three of the five heating zone

controllers or alternatively the use of the panel with a unit with

more than two heating zones.

There was also significant dispute regarding the legal meaning

of the phrase “specially designed” in ECCN 1312A. This phrase

appeared throughout the 1988 Control List, being used to describe

the controlled items in more than 100 instances. The government

contended that the term “specially designed” included all controls

that were designed so that they could be used with regulated HIPs,

-8-
whether or not such controls could also be used with non-regulated

HIPs. See Lachman, 278 F. Supp. 2d at 74-75. The defendants, on

the other hand, argued that the term encompassed only those

controls designed exclusively for use with an embargoed HIP.

“In reliance upon the . . . pre-trial affidavits regarding the

Commerce Department’s understanding of the meaning of ‘specially

designed’ as used in ECCN 1312A (which . . . was consistent with a

plain meaning definition of the term), and in the absence of any

then compelling contrary evidence on this point,” the district

court rejected the defendants’ request for an exclusive use jury

charge. Id. at 77. Instead, the district court judge instructed

the jury as follows:

You should consider that an item or commodity is
specially designed within the meaning of the regulation
if it is designed for a special purpose. . . [which] does
not mean designed for an exclusive purpose. That is to
say, you could have a . . . control that can run a 4.9
inch HIP and can also run a HIP over five inches. It
doesn’t have to be exclusively for that. . . . [Y]ou can
find that a control panel such as the one at issue here
was specially designed for a [regulated HIP] even if you
find that the panel could have been used for other
purposes . . . so long as among the purposes for which it
was designed was the intent to control a [regulated HIP]
and it had the effective capacity to do so when it was
shipped.7

7
Regarding the EAA’s scienter requirement, the judge
instructed the jury that in order to convict they had to find
that each defendant here intentionally violated or conspired to
violate a known legal duty or, in other words, that each knew that
the control panel that we’re talking about here that was being
exported in April of 1988 required an individual validated license
and, yet, knowing that, nevertheless, they undertook to export it

-9-
 The defendants were convicted on all counts, and they timely

filed a motion for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict or, in the

alternative, for a new trial, pursuant to Rules 29(c) and 33 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendants’ motion argued

(1) that the jury instructions erroneously defined “specially

designed”; (2) that ECCN 1312A was void for vagueness; (3) that the

defendants were deprived of a fair trial because expert testimony

regarding the definition of “specially designed” was not admitted,

and (4) that there was insufficient evidence to find (a) that the

defendants violated a known legal duty or conspired to violate the

export laws, (b) that the control panel “was a ‘control’ within the

meaning of ECCN 1312A,” (c) that the control panel “could

effectively control a large HIP within the meaning of the court’s

definition of ‘specially designed’,” and (d) that the district of

Massachusetts was an appropriate venue for the litigation. (J.A.

at 474-99.)

without one. . . . [G]ood faith is a defense to this charge. If
any one of the defendants under your consideration believed in good
faith that he was acting properly, even if he was mistaken or he
was negligent, or he acted through inadvertence, that defendant may
not be found guilty.

Because neither side challenges this instruction on appeal, we
have no occasion to consider whether the trial judge correctly
stated the scienter requirements of the EAA. We reserved this same
issue in our earlier decision in this case. United States v.
Lachman, 48 F.3d 586, 594 (1st Cir. 1995). See generally United
States v. Shetterly, 971 F.2d 67, 73 (7th Cir. 1992).

-10-
 In the course of post-trial proceedings, with few exceptions

(noted below), both the defendants and the government relied

exclusively on non-public sources to support their differing

interpretations of “specially designed” and the vagueness issue.

The defendants’ post-trial submissions included new internal COCOM

documents as well as new affidavits of former and current Commerce

officials, supporting the contention that “specially designed” was

understood to mean exclusively designed.

The most central of the defendants’ post-trial submissions

were the official minutes of a 1975 COCOM meeting, which the

defendants had obtained in connection with another trial in

Germany. These meeting minutes addressed “machines specially

designed for making gas turbine blades” and “machines specially

designed for the manufacture of jet engines.” Lachman, 278 F.

Supp. 2d at 81 (internal alterations omitted). To a large extent,

the minutes reflected the United States delegation’s statements

that “it was standard practice in the context of [the COCOM List]

to make use of the term ‘specially designed’ and that [COCOM] had

resorted to it in a number of cases when it had been difficult to

define exactly the equipments it was desired to embargo” and that

the term was used to mean “an equipment used solely for a

particular purpose.” Id.

In light of the post-trial submissions, the district court

granted the defendants’ motion for acquittal notwithstanding the

-11-
verdict. The district court concluded that the definition of

“specially designed” that it used in charging the jury was

“fundamentally wrong.” Id. at 89. It held that the term was

ambiguous and that Commerce had employed “a number of competing

interpretations for the term ‘specially designed’ in ECCN 1312A.”

Id. at 90. Emphasizing that Commerce bore the responsibility to

settle on one interpretation of the term, the court explained that

Commerce “has yet to meet that obligation with respect to ECCN

1312A sufficiently for purposes of criminal prosecution.” Id.

The court then considered whether ECCN 1312A was void for

vagueness in all its applications. On this question, the court

held that the regulation failed to give constitutionally sufficient

notice and to meet the obligation of fair enforcement. The court

concluded that although it had “no doubt . . . that the defendants

here sought — for their own private economic advantage and heedless

of the national security interest of this country — to exploit

imprecision in the regulatory regime for controlling exports,” it

could not sustain the conviction “in the face of the defendants’

adequately developed void-for-vagueness challenge.” Id. at 97.

The district court failed to rule on the defendants’ motion for a

new trial.8

8
The trial judge denied a separate motion for a new trial
brought by one defendant on the ground that the trial court failed
to make an inquiry about a potential conflict of interest.
Lachman, 278 F. Supp. 2d at 70 n.1.

-12-
 The government timely appealed the post-trial judgment of

acquittal, and the defendants cross-appealed the district court’s

failure to issue a conditional ruling on their new trial motion as

required by Rule 29(d)(1).9

II.

The defendants raise a challenge to the jurisdiction of this

court that we must consider before addressing the merits of the

government’s appeal. The first paragraph of the Criminal Appeals

Act, dealing with the dismissal of indictments, allows government

“appeals whenever the Constitution would permit.” United States v.

Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 337 (1975); see 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (2000). The

defendants argue that the government’s appeal should be dismissed

because the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the government from

appealing the district court’s judgment of acquittal. We disagree.

The defendants argue that had the COCOM minutes been admitted

before the jury verdict, the trial judge would have granted them a

pre-verdict judgment of acquittal that would have been unappealable

under Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978). The defendants

contend that the government should not be able to transform an

unappealable pre-verdict acquittal into an appealable post-verdict

acquittal simply by unlawfully withholding exonerative evidence.

9
As noted above, the case has previously appeared in this
court on an interlocutory appeal by the government. This court
held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding
13 government exhibits. Lachman, 48 F.3d at 594.

-13-
 The defendants misunderstand the holding of Burks and the

trial judge’s acquittal in this case. In Burks, the Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had vacated a conviction because the

evidence had been insufficient to convict. The court of appeals

then remanded to the district court with instructions to consider

whether to enter a judgment of acquittal or order a new trial. The

Supreme Court held that these remand instructions were improper.

The district court was required to enter a judgment of acquittal

because the “appellate reversal mean[t] that the government's case

was so lacking that it should not have even been submitted to the

jury. Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury's

verdict of acquittal--no matter how erroneous its decision--it is

difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in

retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of

law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of

guilty.” Id. at 16 (emphasis in original).

However, Burks explicitly stated that “reversal for trial

error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not

constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed

to prove its case. . . . Rather, it is a determination that a

defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is

defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., . . . incorrect

instructions.” Id. at 15; see also United States v. Scott, 437

U.S. 82, 96 (1978) (“Where the court, before the jury returns a

-14-
verdict, enters a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim.

Proc. 29, appeal will be barred only when ‘it is plain that the

District Court . . . evaluated the Government's evidence and

determined that it was legally insufficient to sustain a

conviction.’” (quoting United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.,

430 U.S. 564, 572 (1977)). Thus the Court stated in Lockhart v.

Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988), that Burks bars retrial only when an

acquittal is based “on the sole ground that the evidence was

insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.” Id. at 39.

The defendants appear to argue that even if the issue of

constitutional vagueness is an issue of law, it depends on

underlying findings of historical fact. We do not view Burks and

its progeny as holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause is

implicated by such fact-finding. The bar of Double Jeopardy

attaches only where the acquittal involves “a resolution, correct

or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense

charged.” Martin Linen, 430 U.S. at 571 (emphasis added).

The trial judge here found that the regulation was

unconstitutionally vague. This is a legal determination that is

independent of the sufficiency of evidence. Declaring that the

regulation is unconstitutionally vague is not a “decision to the

effect that the government has failed to prove its case.” Burks,

437 U.S. at 15. The district court’s historical fact findings

here, even if pertinent to the constitutional issue, are irrelevant

-15-
to the “elements of the offense charged.” Martin Linen, 430 U.S.

at 571. Because the judgment of acquittal was based on the legal

conclusion of a constitutional defect in the regulation, we have

jurisdiction to review the judgment of acquittal.

III.

On the merits, we consider whether the district court properly

granted the defendants’ motion for a judgment of acquittal based on

a legal determination that ECCN 1312A is void for vagueness. The

determination that a regulation is unconstitutionally vague is

reviewed without deference. United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9,

14 (1st Cir. 2003). This review requires us to decide two

questions: first, we must construe the meaning of the term

“specially designed” in ECCN 1312A.10 Second, we must determine

10
Contrary to the government’s contention, United States v.
Cabrera, 208 F.3d 309 (1st Cir. 2000), does not decide the
interpretation of the term “specially designed” in a dual use
situation, even under the statute in Cabrera. In Cabrera the
defendant was convicted of possessing a document-making “implement
or impression specially designed or primarily used for making . .
. a false identification document,” in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028(a)(5). Id. at 311. The defendant in Cabrera argued that
his computer, printer and scanner were not uniquely suited to
making false identification documents. In rejecting this argument,
the court merely noted that “the system also included digitized
templates of various official identification documents,” and that
a “jury viewing this paraphernalia as a whole could reasonably have
deemed the system specially designed for making a false
identification document.” Id. at 313-14 (internal quotations and
alterations omitted). Nothing in Cabrera indicates one way or the
other whether “specially designed” encompasses an exclusive use or
a multiple use definition. Nor do we find the Supreme Court’s
decision in Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman
Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 501 (1982), finding the phrase

-16-
whether the regulation is void for vagueness under the construction

we have adopted.

A.

1.

We begin our analysis with the language of ECCN 1312A. See

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431 (2000). “The Supreme Court

has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the plain meaning rule,

stating that if the language of a statute or regulation has a plain

and ordinary meaning, courts need look no further and should apply

the regulation as it is written.” Textron Inc. v. Comm’r, 336 F.3d

26, 31 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing Comm'r v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168, 174

(1993); United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 241-42

(1989); Gitlitz v. Comm'r, 531 U.S. 206, 220 (2001)).

Dictionaries of the English language are a fundamental tool in

ascertaining the plain meaning of terms used in statutes and

regulations.11 See, e.g., Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-20

(2002); see also Textron, 336 F.3d at 32. The first definition of

“special” provided by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary

is “distinguished by some unusual quality.” Webster’s Third New

International Dictionary of the English Language 2186 (3d ed. 1961)

“designed . . . for use” not to be unconstitutionally vague,
instructive in construing the term “specially designed.”
11
For this purpose we look to dictionaries in use prior to or
contemporaneous with the enactment of the statute or regulation.
See Lamar v. United States, 241 U.S. 103, 113 (1916).

-17-
(1986 prtg.) (“Webster’s Dictionary”). The Oxford English

Dictionary includes a definition of “special” as “[m]arked off from

others of the kind by some distinguishing qualities or features.”

9 A New English Dictionary 542 (Oxford 1919 & Supp. 1986) (“Oxford

English Dictionary”). These definitions support the government’s

position because the control panel at issue had distinguishing

features that rendered it suitable for the larger HIP. On the

other hand, there are alternative definitions of “special” that

tend to support the defendants’ narrower construction of “specially

designed.” For example, Webster’s Dictionary provides definitions

such as “3a: relating to a single thing or class of things,”

Webster’s Dictionary at 2186, and the Oxford English Dictionary

includes definitions such as “affecting or concerning a single . .

. thing” and “[h]aving close, intimate or exclusive connexion or

relationship with one . . . thing (or set of these),” Oxford

English Dictionary at 542. The definitions of “design” are more

uniform. Webster’s Dictionary provides such definitions as “to

create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan” and “to

plan or produce with special intentional adaptation to a specific

end.” Webster’s Dictionary at 611.

The dictionaries thus support two different definitions of

“specially designed”: (1) a broader definition encompassing items

designed with properties that enable them to be used for a

particular purpose, but capable of use for other purpose as well,

-18-
and (2) a narrower definition encompassing only items designed

exclusively for a certain purpose. In interpreting statutes we

must adopt the definition most consistent with the statute’s

purpose. See, e.g., Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 9

(1999) (noting that “statutory language should be interpreted

consonant with ‘the provisions of the whole law, and . . . its

object and policy’” (quoting John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.

Harris Trust and Sav. Bank, 510 U.S. 86, 94-95 (1993))); Chapman v.

Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 608 (1979) ("As in all

cases of statutory construction, our task is to interpret the words

of these statutes in light of the purposes Congress sought to

serve."); Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 650 (1974); see also

Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, 124 S. Ct. 1236, 1245

(2004) (interpreting the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1967 “in light of the statute's manifest purpose”); Johnson v.

United States, 529 U.S. 694, 710 n.10 (2000) ("Our obligation is to

give effect to congressional purpose so long as the congressional

language does not itself bar that result."). We also construe a

regulation in light of the congressional objectives of its

underlying statute. See McCuin v. Sec’y of Health & Human

Services, 817 F.2d 161, 174 (1st Cir. 1987). We must therefore

look to the purpose of the EAA to determine which definition of

“specially designed” is most consistent with the intent of

Congress.

-19-
 2.

The goals of Congress in enacting the EAA are not difficult to

ascertain. The EAA itself begins with an expansive description of

“Congressional findings” and continues with an even longer section

devoted to “Congressional declaration of policy.” These provisions

make clear that the EAA was designed to ensure that exports do not

detrimentally affect the national security of the United States,

while not unduly restricting legitimate trade and, in particular,

United States exports. 50 U.S.C. app. § 2401. The act repeatedly

emphasizes that “[e]xport of goods or technology without regard to

whether they make a significant contribution to the military

potential of individual countries or combinations of countries may

adversely affect the national security of the United States,” id.

§ 2401(5); see also id. §§ 2401(8), 2402(9). ECCN 1312A

specifically states “[n]ational security” as the reason for control

of HIPs. See 15 C.F.R. § 399.1, Supp. 1 (1988). The EAA also

explains that the “ability of the United States citizens to engage

in international commerce is a fundamental concern.” 50 U.S.C.

app. § 2401(1).

The EAA’s concern for national security is of acute relevance

in this case. The term “specially designed” appeared more than 100

times on the Control List in 1988 and represents a fundamental

concept used in export control. Given the depth of concern for

national security in the EAA, it would hardly serve this statutory

-20-
purpose to adopt a definition of “specially designed” that excludes

any item designed for use with embargoed commodities but capable of

use with commodities that were not embargoed. An item “specially

designed” to activate or complete an embargoed commodity can “make

a significant contribution to the military potential” of another

country and threaten “the national security of the United States,”

irrespective of whether it is also capable of interacting with non-

embargoed items. An exclusive use definition would permit easy

evasion of the regulation through the deliberate design of items

that implicate national security concerns so that they have both

permitted and prohibited uses. This is clear from the very facts

of this case, where the exported control panel with dual

capabilities was attached by the defendants to an embargoed HIP in

India. Thus, statutory and regulatory concerns with national

security cannot be achieved if the regulation is construed to allow

the exportation of controls designed to be used with embargoed

commodities so long as they had other potential uses. See

Holloway, 526 U.S. at 9 (rejecting the defendant’s construction

because it “would exclude from the coverage of the statute most of

the conduct that Congress obviously intended to prohibit”).

We conclude that this central purpose of the EAA requires us

to construe “specially designed” in the regulation to include

controls designed to be used with regulated HIPs even though they

are capable of use with non-regulated HIPs. A device is “specially

-21-
designed” for use with an embargoed commodity if it is

intentionally created for use, and in fact capable of being used,

with the embargoed commodity. At the same time, this definition

does not extend the embargo to devices simply because they could in

theory be used with embargoed commodities, thus ensuring that

legitimate exports are not prohibited.12

3.

The defendants raise a number of arguments against adopting

the forgoing construction of the term “specially designed.” In a

letter submitted under Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, they argue “that ‘specially designed’ in ECCN 1312A must

be construed as a ‘technical term of art’ derived from Department

of Commerce and COCOM custom and usage, and not from a plain

dictionary meaning.” The defendants maintain that an exclusive use

definition of “specially designed” is evidenced by affidavits of

former regulators and industry participants regarding the export

12
Because we find the statute and regulation clear in light of
their declared purpose, the rule of lenity does not apply. See
Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 64-65 (1995) (“The rule of lenity
applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be
derived, we can make no more than a guess as to what Congress
intended.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).

-22-
industry’s understanding of the term.13 We do not find these

sources persuasive.

To be sure, there are instances where a statutory or

regulatory term is a technical term of art, defined more

appropriately by reference to a particular industry usage than by

the usual tools of statutory construction. See, e.g., McDermott

Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 342 (1991); La. Pub. Serv.

Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 371-372 (1986); Corning Glass Works v.

Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 201-02 (1974). Thus it is well-settled, for

example, that “in the interpretation of the revenue laws, words are

to be taken . . . according to their commercial designation, if

that differs from the ordinary understanding of the word.” Lutz v.

Magone, 153 U.S. 105, 107 (1894). However, this canon of

construction requires the disputed term to actually be a technical

term of art. Thus, the Court in Greenleaf v. Goodrich, 101 U.S.

278, 284-85 (1879), held that although “the commercial designation

of an article among traders and importers . . . fixes its character

for the purpose of the tariff laws[,] . . . [t]he phrase ‘of

similar description’ is not a commercial term.” There has been no

showing that the term “specially designed” has a technical meaning

13
See, e.g., J.A. at 613 (affidavit of former Commerce
official stating that “specially designed” meant parts, components,
accessories or controls “were peculiar to and solely used” with the
embargoed item); J.A. at 517 (affidavit of former consultant to
exporters stating that “specially designed” covered “components
which could be used with an ‘export controlled’ item and no
other.”).

-23-
in a relevant industry. Rather, the defendants have submitted as

evidence statements as to the common legal interpretation of the

term in 1988. This is not the same as identifying a technical term

of art.14

Second, while the defendants appear to recognize that the

regulation should not be construed based on an agency’s informal

non-public understanding, the district court, in reaching the

interpretation reflected in the jury instructions relied on

evidence concerning the agency’s internal understanding of the

regulation. The defendants now call our attention to post-trial

affidavits that suggest Commerce officials within the agency

internally gave the term a contrary interpretation and affidavits

as to statements made by Commerce officials at industry seminars

also suggesting a contrary interpretation. These views of Commerce

officials are simply irrelevant to our interpretive task. Agencies

do have an important role to play in the interpretation of statutes

and regulations under Chevron and related doctrines. See Chevron

U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837

(1984); United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S.

14
There is another canon of construction that if Congress uses
a legal term of art in a statute, “it presumably knows and adopts
the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in
the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its
use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed.”
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952). However,
this canon is not implicated here because there has been no showing
that the regulation adopted a well-accepted and pre-existing legal
understanding of the term “specially designed.”

-24-
200, 220 (2001); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997). But we

look to agency interpretations only when the statute or regulation

remains ambiguous after we have employed the traditional tools of

construction. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n.9 (“If a court,

employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains

that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue,

that intention is the law and must be given effect.”); see also

Gen. Dynamics, 124 S. Ct. at 1248 (“Even for an agency able to

claim all the authority possible under Chevron, deference to its

statutory interpretation is called for only when the devices of

judicial construction have been tried and found to yield no clear

sense of congressional intent.”). Here, we have concluded that the

regulation is not ambiguous when construed in light of the

statutory purpose.

In any event, agency interpretations are only relevant if they

are reflected in public documents. The Administrative Procedure

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq, provides that “agenc[ies] shall make

available to the public . . . substantive rules of general

applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of

general policy or interpretations of general applicability

formulated and adopted by the agency.” Id. § 552(a)(1)(D) (2000).

So too, under Chevron, the Supreme Court has made clear that

informal agency interpretations of statutes, even if public, are

not entitled to deference. See generally United States v. Mead

-25-
Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). While this is not a situation

involving the interpretation of a statute, the same requirements of

public accessibility and formality are applicable in the context of

agency interpretations of regulations. For example, in Rumsfeld v.

United Technologies Corp., 315 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003),

the court held that testimony of former members of the Cost

Accounting Standards ("CAS") board as to the understanding of the

CAS regulations was irrelevant to the construction of those

regulations. See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302 (1979)

(“Interpretive rules are issued by an agency to advise the public

of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it

administers.” (emphasis added) (internal quotations and citations

omitted)).

The non-public or informal understandings of agency officials

concerning the meaning of a regulation are thus not relevant. The

affidavits here of former and present agency officials as to the

agency’s non-public understanding of the regulation do not remotely

satisfy the requirements of formality and public accessibility.

The statements made by government officials at industry seminars

(upon which the defendants also rely), although public, are also

not the kind of formal agency statements that are entitled to

deference.

Third, the defendants appear to argue that the term “specially

designed” should be construed to be given the same meaning as is

-26-
used in the COCOM regime. We recognize that statutory and

regulatory language should be construed in consonance with

international obligations when possible. See, e.g., Weinberger v.

Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982); Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S.

(2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804). We also recognize that the EAA itself

envisions overlap with COCOM, see 50 U.S.C. app. § § 2404(i),

2402(3), and ECCN 1312A was transposed from the COCOM Annex, see 15

C.F.R. § 799.1(b)(4) (1992). However, the COCOM List does not

define the term “specially designed.” Rather, the defendants point

to Commerce officials’ statements regarding the commonly understood

definition at COCOM and to statements by the United States

delegation during COCOM meetings. These sources suffer from the

same shortcoming as the defendants’ evidence addressing the common

understanding at Commerce. They do not reflect publicly

communicated or publicly accessible definitions. In fact, before

the trial court the government insisted that the 1975 COCOM meeting

minutes remain classified, and provided a redacted version to the

court. Lachman, 278 F. Supp. 2d at 80 n.18.

Finally, the defendants point to the definition of “specially

designed” used in another source of United States export control,

the Missile Technology Control Regime (“MTCR”) Annex. This

definition, adopted in 1991, ostensibly supports the defendants’

proposed definition of "specially designed" as it states in its

“TERMINOLOGY” section that: “‘Specially designed’ describes

-27-
equipment, parts, components or ‘software’ which . . . have unique

properties that distinguish them for certain predetermined purposes

. . . [and] are not capable of producing other types of

components.” See http://www.mtcr.info/english/annex.html. While

this does not suffer from the same defects identified above, being

both formal and public, we conclude that it is not relevant.

The MTCR was formed in 1987 as a “policy statement between the

United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany,

France, Italy, Canada, and Japan . . . to restrict sensitive

missile-relevant transfers based on the MTCR Annex.” 22 C.F.R. §

120.29 (2004). The MTCR Annex lists missile-related commodities,

which MTCR members agree to control. Control of MTCR Annex items

is implemented through listing on the United States Munitions List

pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2797(a)

(2000), and listing on the Control List pursuant to the EAA, 50

U.S.C. app. § 2405(l). In 1991 when the “specially designed”

definition was added to the MTCR Annex, Commerce included among its

definitions applicable to its regulations for the “Commodity

Control List and Related Matters,” 15 C.F.R. § 799 (1992), the MTCR

definition of “specially designed,” id. § 799.1, Supp. 3. This

entry was listed as “Specially designed (MTCR context).” Id. The

defendants argue that “specially designed” in the regulation here

should be construed the same way.

-28-
 We recognize that, generally, “[t]he normal rule of statutory

construction assumes that ‘identical words used in different parts

of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.’” Sorenson

v. Sec’y of the Treasury, 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986) (quoting

Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 U.S. 84, 87 (1934)); see

also Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995). This rule

applies equally to regulations. See Weaver v. United States Info.

Agency, 87 F.3d 1429, 1436-37 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, this

rule of construction is not applicable here. The MTCR Annex is not

“a different part of” the EAA regulations. The MTCR Annex is not

even published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Most importantly, Commerce explicitly limited the

applicability of this definition by listing the definition in the

EAA regulations with the specific notation of “(MTCR context).” If

anything, the explicit limitation of this definition to the “MTCR

context” suggests that the exclusive use definition was a departure

from Commerce’s customary usage of the term, perhaps in order to

achieve consistent usage among the various countries involved in

the MTCR. This purpose, of course, would only have application to

items on the control list marked “MT,” which is not the case with

ECCN 1312A.15 See Gen. Dynamics, 124 S. Ct. at 1246 (rejecting the

15
We also note that the MTCR definition did not exist during
the time period of the export in question, specifically 1988,
because it was added in 1991. See United States v. Price, 361 U.S.
304, 313 (1960) (“[T]he views of a subsequent Congress form a
hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one.”).

-29-
presumption of uniform usage because it conflicted with “the

cardinal rule that statutory language must be read in context”

(internal quotation and alterations omitted)).

In sum, we find no reason to reject the construction of the

term “specially designed” that we glean from the text and purpose

of the regulation. The regulation “by its terms” prohibits

exporting items specially designed to function with a larger HIP,

whether or not designed exclusively for that purpose.

IV.

We next consider whether ECCN 1312A, as construed, is void for

vagueness. Although the district court held the regulation invalid

in all applications, the defendants argue that the regulation is

invalid as it applies to them and disclaim a facial challenge.

The Due Process Clause “mandates that, before any person is

held responsible for violation of the criminal laws of this

country, the conduct for which he is held accountable be prohibited

with sufficient specificity to forewarn of the proscription of said

conduct.” United States v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676, 678 (1st Cir.

1985). “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine

requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with

sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what

conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage

arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461

-30-
U.S. 352, 357 (1983). See also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408

U.S. 104, 108 (1972); Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 350-

51 (1964).

The mere fact that a statute or regulation requires

interpretation does not render it unconstitutionally vague. “Many

statutes will have some inherent vagueness . . . . Even trained

lawyers may find it necessary to consult legal dictionaries,

treatises, and judicial opinions before they may say with any

certainty what some statutes may compel or forbid.” Rose v. Locke,

423 U.S. 48, 49-50 (1975). This is particularly the case where, as

here, the statute deals with economic regulation and is addressed

to sophisticated businessmen and corporations which, because of the

complexity of the regulatory regime, necessarily consult counsel in

planning their activities, and where an administrative process

exists to secure advisory interpretations of the statute. Hoffman

Estates, 455 U.S. at 498; see also McConnell v. FEC, 124 S. Ct.

619, 675 n.64 (2003). The regulation here was reasonably

susceptible to the construction that we have adopted. There is no

basis for invalidating ECCN 1312A as failing to provide fair

notice.

Defendants cite a line of cases from the District of Columbia

Circuit for the proposition that when a regulation lacks

“ascertainable certainty,” the regulated party’s reasonable

interpretation of the regulation will be accepted if otherwise a

-31-
drastic penalty would result. See Trinity Broad. of Fla., Inc. v.

FCC, 211 F.3d 618 (D.C. Cir. 2000); United States v. Chrysler

Corp., 158 F.3d 1350 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53

F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Rollins Envtl. Servs. (NJ) Inc. v. EPA,

937 F.2d 649 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Gates & Fox Co. v. Occupational

Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 790 F.2d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1986). This

court recognized a similar rule in Anzalone, 766 F.2d at 681-82.

These cases, however, do not stand for the proposition that

any ambiguity in a regulation bars punishment. Rather, they are

addressed only to situations in which: (1) the agency had given

conflicting public interpretations of the regulation, or, (2) the

regulation is so vague that the ambiguity can only be resolved by

deferring to the agency’s own interpretation of the regulation

(i.e. a situation in which the ambiguity is resolved by something

comparable to a step-two analysis under Chevron), and the agency

has failed to provide a sufficient, publicly accessible statement

of that interpretation before the conduct in question.

When the agency itself issues contradictory or misleading

public interpretations of a regulation, there may be sufficient

confusion for a regulated party to justifiably claim a deprivation

of fair notice. For example, in Anzalone, the statute required

that a financial institution “and any other participant” to report

a transaction of more than $10,000. However, the Treasury

regulation only specified that financial institutions needed to

-32-
file such reports. 766 F.2d at 681. We concluded that because the

“ambiguity regarding coverage of the [statute] and its regulations

ha[d] been created by the government itself,” the defendant could

not be punished because he was not a “financial institution.” Id.

In General Electric, the court highlighted that a regional office

of the agency had issued an opinion letter subscribing to a

contrary definition of the regulation, describing it as “unlikely

that regulations provide adequate notice when different divisions

of the enforcing agency disagree about their meaning.” 53 F.3d at

1332. Similarly in Trinity Broadcasting, the agency had previously

provided a conflicting interpretation of a “nearly identical

regulation.” 211 F.3d at 629-30. See also Rollins, 937 F.2d at 653

& n.3 (penalty should be mitigated where publicly available summary

of agency report stated that “various EPA offices [had] been giving

conflicting guidance”).

Even if the agency does not issue contradictory public

statements, it may fail to give sufficient fair notice to justify

a penalty if the regulation is so ambiguous that a regulated party

cannot be expected to arrive at the correct interpretation using

standard tools of legal interpretation, must therefore look to the

agency for guidance, and the agency failed to articulate its

interpretation before imposing a penalty. See PMD Produce

Brokerage Corp. v. USDA, 234 F.3d 48, 53 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“The

Secretary’s Rules of Practice are silent . . . . Nor would the .

-33-
. . underlying rationale for the procedures in [the regulation]

compel an interpretation of the regulations.”).

The General Electric/Trinity Broadcasting line of cases do not

apply here. The phrase “specially designed” is not so ambiguous

that standard tools of legal construction fail and a regulated

party must necessarily look to the agency for an interpretation.

As we have found, the meaning of the “specially designed” may be

ascertained by reference to the underlying policies of the EAA.

While the defendants contend that Commerce officials arrived

at conflicting interpretations of ECCN 1312A, the vast majority of

those interpretations were not public. Nothing in the General

Electric/Trinity Broadcasting line of cases suggests that such non-

public statements may create the kind of confusion that supports a

finding of a due process violation.16

In an effort to identify public agency statements to support

their vagueness challenge, defendants rely on Commerce’s earlier

published definition of “specially fabricated,” which specified

that a part “is not a specially fabricated part for [a] machine

unless it is so constructed that its use for all practical purposes

is limited to that machine.” (J.A. at 754.) They assert that

16
See General Electric, 53 F.3d at 1329 (holding that
regulated parties must be able to ascertain the meaning of the
statute by “reviewing the regulations and other public statements
issued by the agency” (emphasis added)); see also Trinity
Broadcasting, 211 F.3d at 628.

-34-
“specially designed” replaced “specially fabricated” and appear to

argue that they were entitled to rely on Commerce’s definition of

“specially fabricated.” However, any similarity between these

terms does not rise to the level of being “nearly identical.”

Trinity Broadcasting, 211 F.3d at 629-30. We therefore find that

the defendants were not entitled to rely on the definition of

“specially fabricated” as creating confusion as to the meaning of

the term “specially designed.”

The defendants rely most heavily on affidavits concerning the

participation of Commerce officials in industry seminars concerning

EAA compliance at which public statements were made regarding

Commerce’s interpretation of the term “specially designed.” Some

of these affidavits state that Commerce officials who presented at

these seminars, though not authorized to offer opinions on

commodity classifications, were directed by Commerce to be “as open

and candid as possible in answering the questions of seminar

attendees.” (J.A. at 697.) These same affiants stated that at the

seminars the officials provided an exclusive use definition of

“specially designed.” The defendants also rely on affidavits from

industry representatives that confirm that such statements were

made. See, e.g., (J.A. at 568.)17

17
The relevant evidence on this matter include: an affidavit
from Richard J. Sheil, a former Commerce official, who stated that
he gave an exclusive use definition of “specially designed” when
presenting at these seminars (J.A. at 515); an affidavit from an
industry representative, Pat Paulson, who attested to hearing Sheil

-35-
 Where the advice given by agencies has been considered in the

General Electric/Trinity Broadcasting line of cases, they have

involved formal contemporaneous agency interpretations reflected in

related regulations, formal letters to regulated parties, and

publicly distributed summaries of internal agency reports. See,

e.g., Trinity Broadcasting, 211 F.3d at 629-30 (related

regulation); General Electric, 53 F.3d at 1332 (letters to

regulated parties); Rollins, 937 F.2d at 653 n.3 (public summary of

agency report). In contrast, we do not think that informal

statements made at industry seminars are the types of

interpretations on which the defendants may properly rely,

particularly because, as noted earlier, there was a formal process

by which the defendants could have sought an advisory opinion from

Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security regarding whether their

control panel was subject to regulation and, if so, its appropriate

ECCN classification.

To allow informal statements by agency officials at industry

seminars to provide a defense to criminal proceedings would be to

invite a debilitating uncertainty in the enforcement of the

criminal law. Each criminal case would threaten to degenerate, as

provide an exclusive use definition at one such seminar (J.A. at
568); and an affidavit from John R. Black, another former Commerce
official, who stated that he spoke at these seminars and that he
understood “specially designed” to require exclusive use, but he
did not state that he had communicated this understanding at the
seminars at which he taught (J.A. at 701).

-36-
the facts of this case illustrate, into a contest between the

prosecution and defense as to the nature and content of the

officials’ oral statements. Those intent on violating the law

could attend such seminars with a view to planting questions that,

in the future, could provide the basis for a defense to a criminal

charge. We do not think that the General Electric/Trinity

Broadcasting line of cases reaches this far.18

We also do not think that ECCN 1312A as written lends itself

to “arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Courts are

concerned with the possibility of arbitrary enforcement where a

statute or regulation leaves broad discretion in the executive to

determine what constitutes a criminal violation such that it may

permit “a standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors,

and juries to pursue their personal predilections.” Kolender, 461

U.S. at 358 (quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 575 (1974)).

Just as there is no deficiency of fair notice, there is no concern

for arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement under the circumstances

in this case. Here, the regulation does not allow for a limitless

range of interpretations of what constitutes criminal conduct. As

18
The mere fact that, after the events in question, various
public government statements also noted that the term "specially
designed" was “confusing” and “ambiguous” also creates no issue of
Due Process. After the defendants' convictions, the Bureau of
Export Administration published a request for comments regarding
the development of a definition for “specially designed” as it
pertains to items on the Control List. 62 Fed. Reg. 56138 (Oct.
29, 1997). No definition has yet been published.

-37-
explained above, ECCN 1312A, as we have interpreted it, prohibits

exporting without a validated license items designed to function

with an embargoed HIP, whether the item is designed exclusively for

this purpose or whether it is capable of serving other functions as

well. This is not an amorphous category of items that allows for

a broad range of possible interpretations.

V.

The defendants argue that we should remand the case to the

district court “to rule conditionally on the defendants' motion for

an new trial,” which it was required to do under Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 29(d)(1).19 We agree that the district court

should have ruled on the defendants’ motion for a new trial. We

remand to the district court to rule on the defendants’ motion for

a new trial in light of the rulings reflected in this opinion. We

intimate no view as to the proper disposition of that motion.

In this connection, we note that the defendants contend on

appeal that a new trial should be granted because informal agency

advice and the private views of agency officials are necessarily

relevant to their defense of lack of willfulness. The Supreme

Court in Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), held that a

bona fide misunderstanding of the tax laws is a defense to willful

19
Rule 29(d)(1) reads: “If the court enters a judgement of
acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally
determine whether a motion for a new trial should be granted if the
judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed.”

-38-
tax evasion. The defendants argue that the jury instructions

required the jury to find willfulness; that under Cheek evidence of

the objective reasonableness of their claimed belief that a license

was not required is relevant to the issue of willfulness; that

evidence as to the interpretation given to the term “specially

designed” by Commerce and COCOM officials (even if undisclosed and

informal) was admissible to show that their claimed belief was

objectively reasonable; and that the United States was obliged to

supply them with this evidence before the trial commenced or,

alternatively, that this evidence is newly discovered evidence

under Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The

district court did not reach these issues. Although the defendants

invite us to reach them on appeal, we think these issues are most

appropriately addressed to the district court in the first instance

in connection with the conditional motion for a new trial. We

express no opinion as to the defendants’ argument in these respects

or whether these arguments were properly preserved in the new trial

motion itself.

VI.

For the foregoing reasons we vacate the district court’s

acquittal, reinstate the defendants’ convictions, and remand for a

ruling on the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

It is so ordered.

-39-