## Facts

- Gregory and Martin Jorgensen formed Dakota Lean, Inc. in South Dakota to market beef sourced from producers’ cattle as a premium product.
- Dakota Lean promoted its beef as “heart healthy” and represented that cattle were genetically selected, individually tracked with strict quality control, and raised without growth hormones or implants, among other claims.
- When eligible cattle supplies became insufficient, the defendants began mixing Dakota Lean beef with commercial beef trim that did not meet the advertised attributes.
- The defendants continued using the same promotional materials and did not disclose the product was blended.
- The blended product was shipped in interstate commerce with the promotional brochure to customers in multiple states.
- Trial evidence indicated each individual defendant approved of, participated in, or knew of the blending and the continued use of the brochure with blended product.
- The defendants were charged and convicted of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and fraudulent sales of misbranded meat under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).
- The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences; the government cross-appealed aspects of sentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove each defendant knowingly and intentionally participated in conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and FMIA misbranding offenses.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing a proposed instruction suggesting corporate status shields officers or employees from responsibility for acts done on the corporation’s behalf.
3. Whether the misbranding charge required a jury instruction that “materiality” is an element under the FMIA provision at issue.
4. Whether evidentiary rulings and providing the jury an unredacted indictment constituted reversible error.
5. Whether the district court clearly erred in estimating fraud loss for Sentencing Guidelines purposes, and whether any Guidelines application error required resentencing (including issues raised on the government’s cross-appeal).

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions on all counts, finding the evidence sufficient to show a scheme to defraud and each defendant’s knowing participation.
- The court affirmed the jury instructions, including the refusal to give the proposed corporate-responsibility limitation instruction.
- The court held the FMIA misbranding instruction was legally adequate without a separate materiality element.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings or in submitting the indictment to the jury where jurors were instructed it was not evidence.
- The court affirmed the sentences, upholding the district court’s loss estimate as a permissible, evidence-based approximation and rejecting both defendants’ and the government’s sentencing arguments.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient for mail and wire fraud when it supports a knowing scheme to defraud implemented through use of mail or interstate wires, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- Corporate form does not shield officers or employees from individual criminal liability where they approve, direct, participate in, or knowingly permit fraudulent conduct carried out through the corporation.
- For FMIA misbranding offenses addressed here, the government must prove intent to defraud and that the defendant caused misbranding in interstate commerce; the statute does not require a separate jury finding of “materiality” as an additional element.
- A district court has discretion over evidentiary rulings and trial management decisions, including providing the indictment to the jury with appropriate limiting instructions.
- Under the Sentencing Guidelines, loss in fraud cases may be reasonably estimated from the record when precise calculation is difficult; appellate review is for clear error as to factual loss findings.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld convictions arising from marketing blended beef as premium “heart healthy” product, ruling that the evidence supported individual culpability despite use of a corporate entity, the FMIA misbranding instruction did not require a separate materiality element, discretionary trial rulings were not reversible error, and the district court’s reasonable loss estimate supported the Guidelines sentences.


United States v. Jorgensen, 144 F.3d 550 (8th Cir. 1998)