## Facts

- John L. Yates, a commercial fisherman, operated the vessel *Miss Katie* in the Gulf of Mexico.
- A Florida Fish and Wildlife officer, deputized for federal fisheries enforcement, boarded the vessel and measured Yates’s catch.
- The officer found 72 red grouper below the then-minimum legal size (20 inches), issued a civil citation, and instructed Yates not to disturb the undersized fish because federal authorities would seize them at port.
- After the inspection, Yates ordered crew members to throw the undersized fish overboard and replace them.
- When the vessel returned to port four days later, the officer re-measured the catch; fewer fish were undersized, and a crewmember admitted Yates had ordered the disposal and replacement.

## Issues

1. Whether a fish qualifies as a “tangible object” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destruction or concealment of “any record, document, or tangible object” to impede a federal matter).
2. Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find that the fish disposed of were undersized and that Yates acted with the intent required by § 1519.
3. Whether Yates’s actions also supported conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) for disposing of property to prevent or impair the government’s lawful seizure.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Yates’s convictions under both 18 U.S.C. § 1519 and 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a).
- On § 1519, the court held a fish is a “tangible object” because it has physical form under an ordinary dictionary meaning.
- The court concluded the trial evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the discarded fish were undersized and that Yates ordered their destruction to impede federal enforcement.
- The court left intact the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory terms are generally given their ordinary meaning unless the statute provides a specialized definition or context clearly requires otherwise.
- Under § 1519, destruction or concealment of a “tangible object” with intent to impede, obstruct, or influence a federal investigation or matter can support conviction; in this decision, “tangible object” was read broadly to include physical items such as fish.
- Evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction where a rational jury could find the charged elements beyond a reasonable doubt based on the record.
- Under § 2232(a), disposing of property for the purpose of preventing or impairing the government’s lawful seizure authority constitutes a separate federal offense.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit treated § 1519’s reference to “tangible object” as encompassing any physical object and therefore upheld Yates’s obstruction conviction for ordering undersized fish thrown overboard, along with his conviction for disposing of property to prevent seizure under § 2232(a).


United States v. Yates, 733 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 2013)