Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Packers and Stockyards Act
Violation of Packers and Stockyards Act
Used for Sentencing Enhancement
Eric PendergrassNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In United States v. Young, 413 F.3d 727 (2005), the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a sentencing enhancement that increased punishment imposed upon a cattle producer who plead guilty to charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, making false statements, and criminal forfeiture related to a scheme to defraud investors in his cattle business because he violated a prior administrative order issued by the USDA requiring compliance with the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA).
Under a plea agreement, both the cattle producer and his accountant were convicted of various crimes and sentenced to prison terms of 108 months and 87 months, respectively. Id. at 728. In part, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri arrived at the sentence imposed upon Young by applying the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2f1.1(b)(4)(C), which suggests an increase of two levels in the imposed sentence for violating "a[ ] prior, specific…administrative order…not addressed elsewhere in the guidelines." Id. at 733. Young argued that the enhancement constituted an impermissible double counting because he was effectively punished twice by the court that charged him with making false entries into accounts and records required by the PSA. Id.
The Eighth Circuit, however, was not persuaded by Young's argument because the initial level of enhancement was based on a grouping of the charges related to the total amount of the loss instead of the individual charges related to the PSA. Id. at 733-34. By utilizing the grouping based on the total loss, the court avoided the problem of double accounting because the PSA violation was never considered in the initial sentencing determination nor did it punish any action that had already been addressed. Id. at 734. The Eighth Circuit went on to suggest that Young's violations of the administrative orders issued by the USDA demonstrated "aggravated criminal intent and deserves additional punishment." Id. This reason for enhancing Young's sentence punishes him for the "harm inflicted upon the [government's] administrative process" and recognizes his recidivism and willingness to disregard administrative orders. Id. citing United States v. Maloney, 406 F.3d 149, 153-54 (2nd Cir. 2005). Ultimately, the Eight Circuit upheld the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court. Id.
The case was decided on July 5, 2005; this summary was posted October 21, 2006.