United States v. Carpenter
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
933 F.2d 748 (1991)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Marvin Carpenter (defendant) owned a company that operated a goldfish farm where he bred millions of goldfish on 450 acres of ponds. The local birds in the area posed a threat to the business as predators of the goldfish. Thus, Carpenter and his employees used various ways to kill the birds, including trapping, poisoning, and shooting. After receiving a complaint about dead birds, a state game warden went to the property and advised Carpenter that he could not keep killing birds on the property. Carpenter then applied for a federal permit to kill 50 migratory birds a year of four specifically named species. Carpenter and his employees did not adhere to the 50-bird limit and continued to kill birds in high quantities. Carpenter reported in multiple years that his business had killed exactly 50 birds in any given year. Federal wildlife agents launched an investigation that revealed Carpenter’s actions. The government (plaintiff) charged Carpenter and his company with making false statements to federal agents, killing migratory birds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and violating the Lacey Act by acquiring migratory birds killed in violation of federal law (the federal law being the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). Carpenter was subsequently convicted and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Noonan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
