United States v. DeChristopher
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24192, 181 Oil & Gas Rep. 1050, 695 F.3d 1082 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A single individual acting alone can be convicted under 30 U.S.C. § 195(a)(1) for organizing a scheme to circumvent or defeat the provisions of the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, as the statutory language does not unambiguously require group activity.
Facts:
- In December 2008, Tim DeChristopher, a university student, went to a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oil and gas lease auction in Salt Lake City, Utah, intending to join a protest.
- Deciding he wanted to take stronger action, DeChristopher entered the BLM building and told an employee he was a bidder.
- DeChristopher signed a bidder registration form, certifying that any bid he submitted would be a 'good faith intention' to acquire a lease.
- He was given a bidder paddle and entered the auction room.
- About twenty minutes into the auction, DeChristopher began bidding on parcels, driving up prices on several before winning any.
- DeChristopher ultimately won fourteen parcels with bids totaling approximately $1.8 million.
- When confronted by a BLM agent, DeChristopher admitted he was unable to pay for the leases he had won.
- DeChristopher's actions caused some legitimate bidders to leave and led BLM officials to suspend the auction.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Tim DeChristopher on one count of violating 30 U.S.C. § 195(a)(1) and one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- Prior to trial, the government filed a motion in limine to preclude DeChristopher from presenting a necessity defense, which the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted.
- The district court also denied DeChristopher's motion for discovery related to a claim of selective prosecution.
- At the close of the government's case and again at the close of all evidence, DeChristopher moved for a judgment of acquittal, both of which the district court denied.
- A jury found DeChristopher guilty on both counts.
- The district court sentenced DeChristopher to twenty-four months in prison.
- DeChristopher (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 30 U.S.C. § 195(a)(1), which makes it unlawful for any person 'to organize or participate in any scheme, arrangement, plan, or agreement' to defeat federal oil and gas leasing laws, require the involvement of more than one person?
Opinions:
Majority - Baldock, Circuit Judge
No. The statute does not unambiguously require group activity, and therefore the evidence was sufficient to convict DeChristopher. While an 'agreement' requires two or more people, the statute's other terms—'scheme,' 'arrangement,' and 'plan'—do not. A single person can 'organize' a 'scheme' or 'plan' on their own. The court analyzed the ordinary dictionary definitions of these words and found they do not necessitate collective action. Because DeChristopher did not raise this specific argument at trial, it is reviewed for plain error, and he cannot meet this high standard because there is no controlling precedent and the statutory language is not clear or obvious in his favor.
Dissenting - Briscoe, Chief Judge
Yes. A conviction under 30 U.S.C. § 195(a)(1) requires proof of group activity, and the evidence was therefore insufficient. The plain meaning of the verbs 'organize' and 'participate,' when read in context, commonly denote group action. More importantly, the legislative history shows Congress enacted the statute to combat organized, large-scale fraud by oil and gas industry insiders, not the actions of a solitary protestor. Applying the statute to DeChristopher's individual act of civil disobedience is inconsistent with clear congressional intent and results in a conviction based on insufficient evidence, which constitutes plain error.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent as the first known prosecution under 30 U.S.C. § 195(a)(1). The majority's textualist interpretation broadens the statute's scope beyond organized group fraud, as suggested by the legislative history, to include disruptive acts by a single individual. This decision empowers the government to use this anti-fraud statute against individual protestors who interfere with federal leasing processes. The sharp dissent highlights the tension between a statute's plain text and its historical purpose, setting the stage for future challenges regarding the law's application to acts of civil disobedience.
