F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
AUG 23 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 98-2248
JOHNNY SANDIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------------
COALITION FOR THE FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN
SUPPORT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
RESTORATION ACT,
Amicus Curiae.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D. Ct. No. CR 96-717-MV)
John F. Moon Samore, Albuquerque, New Mexico, appearing for Defendant-
Appellant.
Jonathon Miles Gerson, Assistant United States Attorney (John J. Kelly, United
States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, appearing for
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc D. Stern, American Jewish Congress, New York, New York, filed a brief on
behalf of the Amicus Curiae.
Before ANDERSON , TACHA , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.
TACHA , Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Johnny Sandia sold a golden eagle skin and other
migratory bird parts to a federal undercover agent on several occasions in 1996.
Based on these sales and the information gathered during its investigation, the
government charged Sandia with eleven violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq ., the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C.
§ 668, and the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3371 et seq . Mr. Sandia moved to dismiss
the indictment based on his free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, 1
and on alleged outrageous
1
Under RFRA, government action that burdens the free exercise of religion
must further a “compelling government interest” and be “the least restrictive
means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-
1(b). Congress passed RFRA in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith , 494 U.S. 872
(1990), which held that the First Amendment allowed the government to enforce
neutral laws of general applicability even when such laws burdened the free
exercise of religion. See City of Boerne v. Flores , 521 U.S. 507, 512-16 (1997).
The purposes of RFRA are to “restore the compelling interest test . . . and to
guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is
substantially burdened” and “to provide a claim or defense to persons whose
religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb(b).
-2-
government conduct. The district court denied both motions, finding that RFRA
did not apply to the federal government and that the government did not engage in
outrageous conduct with respect to Mr. Sandia. Mr. Sandia then pled guilty to
one violation of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C §§ 3372(a)(1), 3373(d)(1)(B), admitting
that he illegally sold a golden eagle taken in violation of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. Defendant reserved his right to appeal the district court’s rulings on
his motions to dismiss and now exercises that right. We affirm.
I.
The district court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss based on
defendant’s religious rights under RFRA is a question of law that we review de
novo. Cf. United States v. Wittgenstein , 163 F.3d 1164, 1170 (10th Cir. 1998)
(reviewing de novo district court’s ruling on motion to dismiss indictment due to
alleged due process violations in underlying immigration proceedings); United
States v. Cordoba , 71 F.3d 1543, 1545 (10th Cir. 1995) (reviewing district court’s
denial of motion to dismiss indictment on double jeopardy grounds de novo).
In 1996, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service carried out an
undercover investigation of illegal trafficking in protected wildlife in northern
New Mexico. During the course of the investigation, an undercover agent met
with several members of the Jemez Pueblo and told them he was interested in
purchasing eagles and eagle parts. One pueblo member took the agent to meet
-3-
Mr. Sandia. Through several transactions, the agent purchased a golden eagle
skin and other bird parts from Mr. Sandia.
The Lacey Act prohibits, inter alia, the sale of wildlife taken or possessed
in violation of federal law with a value in excess of $350. See 16 U.S.C.A. §§
3372(a)(1), 3373(d)(1)(B) (West Supp. 1999). Mr. Sandia admitted taking the
golden eagle without a permit, in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. He
sold the eagle for $800. Before the district court, defendant claimed a protected
right under RFRA to possess the birds and bird parts because the Jemez Pueblo
considers the eagle and other birds sacred and uses them in religious ceremonies.
Based on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores , 521 U.S.
507 (1997), which found RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states, the
district court ruled that RFRA did not apply and therefore denied defendant’s
motion to dismiss.
Both the government and defendant contend that the district court erred in
finding RFRA inapplicable to the federal government. The government, however,
urges that we affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss because the offense of
conviction – the commercial sale of protected wildlife – does not implicate any
religious rights. “[W]e are free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds
for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds
not relied upon by the district court.” Medina v. City & County of Denver , 960
-4-
F.2d 1493, 1495 n.1 (10th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). We need not reach the RFRA question because defendant took or
possessed the eagle in violation of federal law and never claimed his sale of the
golden eagle to the government agent had any religious significance.
In essence, defendant’s RFRA defense is that he did not take and possess
the disputed birds “in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United
States,” as required by 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a). Mr. Sandia claims that he trapped
and possessed protected wildlife solely for religious ceremonial purposes. The
taking of the birds for religious purposes, he asserts, is itself imbued with
religious significance and comes under the aegis of RFRA. Thus, he argues he
legally took the birds and any indictment based upon an illegal taking of the birds
must therefore fall.
We do not decide whether Mr. Sandia’s taking of the birds was, in the first
instance, legal under RFRA because Mr. Sandia subsequently sold the birds he
claims to have taken for religious purposes. This subsequent sale of the birds
destroys defendant’s claim that he engaged in protected religious activity. When
defendant decided to sell the birds, he no longer possessed them for a religious
purpose and therefore possessed them in violation of federal law. Allowing
defendant to defeat an indictment simply by claiming he originally took the birds
for religious purposes would render the Lacey Act nugatory and permit people,
-5-
under the guise of religion, to stockpile protected species for commercial sale.
Simply stated, a defendant may not claim First Amendment or RFRA protection
for the taking and possession of a protected bird when he subsequently sells it for
pure commercial gain. Cf. United States v. Hugs , 109 F.3d 1375, 1377-78 (9th
Cir. 1997) (“A defendant prosecuted under the [Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act] for purely commercial rather than religious activities may not assert a claim
that the free exercise of religion has been infringed by the Act.”)
Defendant also did not claim on appeal that his sale of the golden eagle
skin had religious significance. In Hugs , the district court found that the
defendants, who had purchased golden eagles from a government agent, might
have made the purchase for religious purposes. See 109 F.3d at 1378. By
contrast, Mr. Sandia expressly stated to the district court that he was not claiming
a religious right to make a commercial sale. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 18
(“At no time has Mr. Sandia asserted a . . . right . . . to give him permission to
‘engage in trafficking.’”); R., Vol. I, Doc. 30, at 5 (“Mr. Sandia does not claim
‘any right to engage in commercial transactions with eagles.’”). 2
2
At oral argument, defendant’s counsel suggested that the sale and/or barter
of sacred bird parts to other Native Americans was a tradition and might itself
have religious significance. According to counsel, the government agent to whom
Mr. Sandia sold the eagle represented himself as a Native American seeking eagle
parts for ceremonial purposes. However, petitioner did not specifically raise this
argument before the district court or in his briefs to this court. Therefore,
petitioner has waived the argument. See Thomas v. Denny’s Inc. , 111 F.3d 1506,
-6-
In sum, defendant’s actions in this case were commercial activity prohibited
by law and unprotected by RFRA. An evidentiary hearing would not have
changed this conclusion, as defendant could not have altered the essential
commercial nature of his actions. Thus, the district court did not err in denying
the motion to dismiss the indictment based on RFRA.
II.
Mr. Sandia also claims that the government agent’s activities in inducing
him to sell the eagle were so extreme as to constitute outrageous government
conduct that violated due process and required dismissal of the charges. 3
The
district court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on this claim. We review the
district court’s ruling on government misconduct de novo. See, e.g. , United
States v. Pedraza , 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir. 1994).
“When the government’s conduct during an investigation is sufficiently
outrageous, the courts will not allow the government to prosecute offenses
developed through that conduct.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “Government conduct is outrageous if ‘considering the totality of the
1510 n.5 (10th Cir. 1997).
3
In his opening brief, defendant raises this issue in only the most cursory
manner. Generally, the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the
issue. See, e.g. , State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon , 31 F.3d 979, 984 n.7 (10th
Cir. 1994). While one could make a good case that defendant has waived the
outrageous government conduct claim, we deem it sufficiently raised and will
consider it on the merits.
-7-
circumstances in any given case, the government’s conduct is so shocking,
outrageous and intolerable that it offends the universal sense of justice.’” United
States v. Gell-Iren , 146 F.3d 827, 831 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v.
Lacey , 86 F.3d 956, 964 (10th Cir. 1996)). Outrageous conduct generally requires
government creation of a crime or substantial coercion to induce the crime. See,
e.g. , id. ; Pedraza , 27 F.3d at 1521. “The outrageous conduct defense, however, is
an extraordinary defense that will only be applied in the most egregious
circumstances.” Pedraza , 27 F.3d at 1521. “It is not to be invoked each time the
government acts deceptively or participates in a crime that it is investigating.”
United States v. Mosely , 965 F.2d 906, 910 (10th Cir. 1992).
Mr. Sandia asserts that the government’s cash offer was so powerful to a
person living in an impoverished community that it coerced him into the illegal
sale. He also claims that he was not predisposed to sell eagles until the
government agent came into his community and that the crime was therefore
created entirely by the government. According to defendant, an evidentiary
hearing would have provided additional evidence supporting this theory.
However, neither the record nor Mr. Sandia’s proffered information reveals any
conduct meeting the outrageous conduct standard.
The facts show that a government undercover agent came to the Jemez
Pueblo pretending to be interested in purchasing eagle parts. By defendant’s
-8-
account, the agent claimed he was Native American and was purchasing the parts
for traditional ceremonial purposes. The agent sought out a Jemez Pueblo
member, possibly offered him an inducement, and asked him if he knew of anyone
selling eagle parts. The pueblo member took the agent to Mr. Sandia. The
transaction ensued.
Even assuming the facts defendant sought to proffer, the government here
did not create a crime by “‘engineer[ing] and direct[ing] the criminal enterprise
from start to finish.’” Gell-Iren , 146 F.3d at 831 (quoting Mosley , 965 F.2d at
911 ( internal quotation marks omitted)). Though the agent initiated the
transactions, defendant participated in them by providing the contraband for sale.
The government, as a part of a sting operation, can suggest or initiate illegal
activity. See, e.g. , United States v. Sneed , 34 F.3d 1570, 1577-78 (10th Cir.
1994); United States v. Harris , 997 F.2d 812, 816 (10th Cir. 1993); Mosley , 965
F.2d at 911-12; see generally United States v. Diggs , 8 F.3d 1520, 1523-25 (10th
Cir. 1993) (listing cases from Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit). Like the
government agents in Sneed and Harris , the agent in this case initiated the
transaction, but did not engineer the crime. See Sneed , 34 F.3d at 1578; Harris ,
997 F.2d at 816. The defendant, not the government, arranged the capture of the
birds and chose to sell them for commercial gain.
Mr. Sandia makes much of the fact that the undercover agent allegedly
-9-
claimed he was a Native American seeking ceremonial components. This cover
story supposedly took advantage of defendant and exacerbated the outrageousness
of the conduct. We disagree with this conclusion and refuse to prohibit
government agents from assuming fictitious roles in the course of an
investigation. Finally, the government’s use of a pueblo member to initially
contact defendant was not improper. “[I]t does not become outrageous [conduct]
simply because the investigation includes a paid informant who shares the
suspect’s cultural heritage and religious faith.” Gell-Iren , 146 F.3d at 831. In
sum, Mr. Sandia actively participated in the criminal activity, and the government
did not engineer the entire crime from start to finish.
The government also did not coerce defendant into committing the crime.
“Only governmental coercion that is particularly egregious rises to the level of
outrageous conduct.” Pedraza , 27 F.3d at 1521. Mr. Sandia argues that the
agent’s financial inducement to someone with as little annual income as him was
an improper offer he could not refuse. We addressed a similar argument in
United States v. Martinez , 749 F.2d 601, 605 (10th Cir. 1984), a case in which
government agents investigating abuse in the food stamp program sold food
stamps at a deep discount to defendants who were “at, or below, the poverty level
and needed food stamps to help feed their families.” The agents offered the
stamps, and the defendants accepted. Despite the defendants’ difficult financial
-10-
circumstances, we found no outrageous government conduct in the sale,
concluding “[w]hat prompted the defendants to . . . acquire the food stamps is not
really relevant.” Id. at 605. The instant case presents a similar scenario, and we
reach the same result. While the plight of many in the Jemez Pueblo may be
serious, financial need does not excuse criminal conduct or give rise to a claim of
unconstitutional government conduct. Accordingly, the government did not
improperly coerce defendant into engaging in the criminal activity. The district
court correctly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for outrageous government
conduct.
Based on the foregoing analysis, we AFFIRM the rulings of the district
court denying defendant’s motions to dismiss. Appellant’s motion for leave to
submit record references is GRANTED.
-11-
United States v. Sandia
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Date filed: 1999-08-23
Citations: 188 F.3d 1215
Copy Citations