United States v. Eugene B. Cameron
Opinion
Opinion
Aldisert, J.
The question for decision is whether violating regulations of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (“IPHC” or “Commission”) is a proper basis for a criminal prosecution under the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372 (a)(1), 3373(d)(1)(B). If so, we must then decide if promulgating a regulation limiting a day’s catch to 20,000 lbs. exceeded the Commission’s authority. We conclude that violating the regulation was a sufficient basis for the Lacey Act criminal prosecution here and that the Commission was duly authorized to promulgate the fish limit regulation. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the district court in this appeal by Eugene B. Cameron from a judgment of sentence entered upon a guilty plea conditioned upon the resolution of the two issues presented to us. We will vacate only that portion of the sentence imposing a special assessment.
Jurisdiction was proper in the trial court based on 16 U.S.C. § 3375 (c). Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The appeal was timely filed under Rule 4(b), F.R.App.P. Before proceeding into the facts, it is necessary to explain the purpose of the regulation and the scope of the Lacey Act.