[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ 09/15/98
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 98-2229
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos. 95-1575-Civ-T-24B, 95-1947-Civ-T-24B,
96-2603-Civ-T-24B, 97-197-Civ-T-24B
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
489 CASES SHRIMP, packed by Zhousban
Import and Export Corporation of
Zhejiang, China,
Defendant,
SIGMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Claimant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
462,000 POUNDS OF FROZEN SHRIMP,
Located anywhere on the premises
of Sigma International, Inc.,
333 16th Avenue S., St. Petersburg,
Florida,
Defendant,
SIGMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Claimant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
6,343 CASES SHRIMP, Located at Sigma
International, Inc., 333 16th Avenue
South, St. Petersburg, Florida,
Defendant,
SIGMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Claimant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
900 CASES SHRIMP, Located at Sigma
International, Inc., 333 16th Avenue
South, St. Petersburg, Florida,
Defendant,
SIGMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Claimant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 15, 1998)
Before BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The question presented is whether or not the district court
abused its discretion in requiring Sigma to pay the expenses
incurred by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services. We hold the award was proper and not an abuse of
discretion.
2
Sigma engaged in a scheme to bring adulterated shrimp into the
United States where the shrimp were to be sold fraudulently.
Federal agents executed a search warrant and discovered the
adulterated, decomposed shrimp. Because these agents lacked the
authority to immediately stop the sale of the shrimp, the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was asked to come
in and take appropriate action. It did and the shrimp were kept
off the market. Both the federal authorities and the state agency
incurred costs. The district court ordered all of these costs paid
by Sigma.
Sigma objects to only the $143,001.30 awarded to FDACS. It
argues that FDACS was neither a party nor an intervenor in this
action and that 21 U.S.C. § 334 simply does not reach so far.
21 U.S.C. § 334(d)(1) provides:
Any food, drug, device, or cosmetic condemned under this
section shall, after entry of the decree, be disposed of
by destruction or sale as the court may, in accordance
with the provisions of this section, direct and the
proceeds thereof, if sold, less the legal costs and
charges, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United
States; but such article shall not be sold under such
decree contrary to the provisions of this chapter or the
laws of the jurisdiction in which sold. After entry of
the decree and upon the payment of the costs of such
proceedings and the execution of a good and sufficient
bond conditioned that such article shall not be sold or
disposed of contrary to the provisions of this chapter or
the laws of any State or Territory in which sold, the
court may by order direct that such article be delivered
to the owner thereof to be destroyed or brought into
compliance with the provisions of this chapter under the
supervision of an officer or employee duly designated by
the Secretary, and the expenses of such supervision shall
be paid by the person obtaining release of the article
under bond.
21 U.S.C. § 334(e) reads:
3
When a decree of condemnation is entered against the
article, court costs and fees, and storage and other
proper expenses, shall be awarded against the person, if
any, intervening as claimant of the article.
The district court followed the provisions of the statutory
scheme in setting the conditions under which Sigma could reprocess
this shrimp into “chum” (bait for fishing operations). A portion
of the “proper expenses” found by the district court was that
incurred by the FDACS. These costs are not duplicative of any
others and there is no dispute over the reasonableness thereof.
Although we find no existing precedent on point, we think the plain
language of the statutes involved provides ample authority for the
ruling. There is simply no indication that only expenses incurred
by the federal government are covered or that only parties may be
so protected. Under the facts of this case, about which there is
no dispute, we find no abuse of discretion.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4