United States v. Miller

Case No. 08-00023-01CR-W-DW (2008)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Miller

United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Case No. 08-00023-01CR-W-DW (2008)

Facts

ChemNutra, Inc. (defendant) was a Nevada-based company that imported food and food products from China to the United States. ChemNutra was owned by Sally and Stephen Miller (defendants). The Millers caused ChemNutra to enter into contracts with pet-food manufacturers in the United States to supply the manufacturers with food-grade wheat gluten that had a minimum protein content of 75 percent. The Millers then caused ChemNutra to enter contracts with a Chinese exporter to purchase the wheat gluten that ChemNutra intended to sell to the pet-food manufacturers. The Chinese exporter contracted with a Chinese manufacturing company to supply the wheat gluten the exporter would sell to ChemNutra. Between late 2006 and early 2007, the Chinese exporter sent more than 800 metric tons of wheat gluten to ChemNutra. Although wheat gluten was on the Chinese government’s list of food products subject to mandatory inspection before leaving China, the Chinese exporter used an inaccurate product code for the wheat gluten and thus falsely declared to the Chinese government that the product was not subject to inspection. Once the wheat gluten arrived in the United States, ChemNutra sold the wheat gluten to the United States pet-food manufacturers. The manufacturers then used the wheat gluten in the pet food. However, the wheat gluten contained melamine, which the Chinese manufacturer had added to the wheat gluten to fraudulently inflate the gluten’s protein content. Melamine was not approved as a food additive in the United States. Over 3,000 cats and dogs in the United States died or became seriously ill after eating the pet food made with the melamine-laced wheat gluten. The United States government charged the Millers and ChemNutra with distributing adulterated food and distributing misbranded food in violation of federal law.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership