United States v. Erik Van Veenen

94 F.3d 654 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erik VAN VEENEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-30189. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 7, 1996. * Decided Aug. 12, 1996. Before: GOODWIN, BRUNETTI, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Van Veenen appeals his conviction and sentence on multiple counts of selling unlawfully taken wildlife in foreign commerce and of exporting or attempting to export unlawfully taken wildlife in violation of the Lacey Act, 16 USC § 3372 (a). We affirm. 3 Van Veenen was a registered hunting guide in Alaska. After a jury trial, during which Van Veenen did not challenge the constitutionality of the Lacey Act, he appeared for sentencing and for the first time mentioned that he thought the Alaska statute under which counts 3 and 4 were prosecuted, violated the Commerce Clause. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8. His lawyer withdrew the point and…