Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



5 min read

United States v Shih-Rated for Operation

Rated for Operation | Export Administration Regulations (EAR) | IEEPA

United States v Shih- rated for operation

In this court opinion, we delve into a fascinating case involving Yi-Chi Shih and his conviction for various crimes, including conspiracy to violate export control laws. The opinion explores the intriguing issues raised on appeal, such as the validity of the president's declaration of a national emergency and the potential errors in jury instructions.

The court's ruling states that the president's declaration of a national emergency cannot be subject to judicial review. Additionally, the court concludes that the term "rated for operation" does not necessitate post-manufacture, pre-export testing. The court acknowledges that the district court improperly relied on witness testimony, but ultimately deems any errors as harmless. As a result, the court affirms the conviction in part, reverses it in part, and remands the case for further consideration. Throughout the case, the Export Administration Regulations (EARs) and the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) play a pivotal role, as they are responsible for regulating exports to safeguard national security and foreign policy interests.

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)

The case also delves into the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a crucial legislation that empowers the president to declare a national emergency and exert control over exports. It sheds light on the intricate process of exporting items that fall under the purview of the Export Administration Regulations (EARs), which entails acquiring a license and submitting an Electronic Export Information (EEI). Furthermore, the case explores the significance of the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN), a classification system that categorizes items subject to the EARs. Specifically, it delves into the ECCNs that hold relevance to the case, particularly pertaining to the monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC).

publicly available technology

The case also delves into the regulatory framework surrounding "publicly available technology," which falls outside the scope of the Export Administration Regulations (EARs). It explores the legal proceedings against Yi-Chi Shih, Kiet Mai, and other co-defendants who faced charges for a range of offenses, including conspiracy to violate export control laws, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. Shih's charges stemmed from the export of monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMICs) to China, which he obtained from Cree, Inc.

Shih allegedly misrepresented the intended purpose of the MMICs and the destination of the shipment in an effort to evade export control regulations. While Shih was initially found guilty on all counts, the district court later granted a judgment of acquittal on two of the charges. Subsequently, the district court reinstated one of those counts, prompting both the government and Shih to appeal the decision.

constitutionality of the Export Administration Regulations (EARs) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

ITAR Compliance

The case delves into the constitutional implications of the Export Administration Regulations (EARs) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Shih argues that the EARs are invalid due to an alleged misuse of presidential authority through Executive Order 13,222, while also claiming that the IEEPA violates the nondelegation doctrine. However, the court dismisses both arguments, emphasizing the limited role of courts in reviewing the executive's declaration of a national emergency and highlighting the constraining nature of the IEEPA on the executive's discretion. Additionally, the case explores the district court's interpretation of the term "rated for operation" in the EARs, which the Court of Appeals deems flawed.

The Court of Appeals asserts that the district court's interpretation creates a loophole in the EARs that undermines their intended purpose. Furthermore, the case addresses Shih's contention that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the fundamental research exemption as proposed by him. The Court of Appeals, however, rejects this argument, stating that the defense theory was adequately covered by other instructions given to the jury. Shih's claim that the EARs are unconstitutionally vague is also addressed by the Court of Appeals, which dismisses it by highlighting the clear guidance provided by the regulations and the inclusion of a scienter requirement to address any concerns. Additionally, the case delves into Shih's efforts to establish that the agents conducting the search of his house overlooked two boxes containing MMICs.

district court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining objections

The Court of Appeals upholds the district court's decision to sustain objections to questions posed to Miller, as Shih's counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine her. Additionally, Shih's claim of being denied the right to present a defense is dismissed by the Court of Appeals, as they find the district court's evidentiary rulings to be well within its discretion. Furthermore, the document delves into Shih's argument that the district court made an error in restricting Mai's testimony, but the Court of Appeals deems this error to be inconsequential.

The case thoroughly explores the district court's evidentiary rulings, which are subject to review by the Court of Appeals for potential abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in delaying the admission of two boxes containing MMICs, as the defense failed to establish their authenticity or chain of custody. Moreover, the Court of Appeals determines that the district court did not err in rejecting the admission of internal Cree emails, as they were repetitive and had minimal probative value. Lastly, the Court of Appeals affirms that the district court acted within its discretion in postponing the admission of YouTube videos, as they did not contradict the testimony provided by Dr. Barner.

admissibility of expert testimony

The case explores the admissibility of expert testimony provided by Peter Mattis, a Research Fellow in China Studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Shih argues that Mattis's testimony was not properly disclosed, unreliable, and lacked probative value or was unfairly prejudicial. The Court of Appeals acknowledges that the government may have failed to fully disclose Mattis's testimony in accordance with Rule 16 prior to trial. However, Shih has not demonstrated that the verdict would have been different if the government had complied with the discovery rules. The Court of Appeals also affirms that Mattis met the requirements to qualify as an expert, utilized a reliable methodology, and that Shih had adequate notice of the witness and the subjects of his testimony.

Court can reject cumulative evidence

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals upholds the district court's decision to dismiss cumulative evidence, affirming that it did not abuse its discretion. The case thoroughly examines the admissibility of Peter Mattis's testimony, concluding that it was not unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 703. Additionally, the Court of Appeals addresses Shih's claim of prosecutorial misconduct, determining that the prosecutor's statements during rebuttal argument did not taint the trial with unfairness, thus not constituting a denial of due process.

sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction

The Court of Appeals thoroughly examines the sufficiency of the evidence presented to support Shih's conviction on ten counts and concludes that there was indeed ample evidence to support the convictions. Additionally, the court addresses the issue of improper jury instructions pertaining to the wire and mail fraud charges. However, the court determines that any errors in these instructions were ultimately inconsequential. Furthermore, the court carefully evaluates the evidence that substantiates the verdicts on the mail and wire fraud charges, highlighting Shih's deceptive actions towards Cree and his deliberate concealment of the customer and end user's identity. The court also discusses the evidence that supports the computer fraud charge, emphasizing Shih's unauthorized access of Cree's portal as part of his criminal activities.

money laundering charge

The court also addresses the money laundering charge, upholding the conviction due to the validity of the underlying charges. Additionally, the court delves into the Classified Information Procedures Act, highlighting the district court's adherence to the proper procedure in determining the non-discoverability of classified material. The case thoroughly examines various issues raised on appeal, including the validity of the president's declaration of a national emergency and potential jury instruction errors. Furthermore, the court explores the concept of "cumulative error" and its potential impact on a defendant's case. Ultimately, the court reverses the judgment of acquittal on Count 2, affirms the convictions on all other counts, and remands for further proceedings. Lastly, the court delves into the definition of "rate" in relation to the case at hand.

Court did not err in its construction of the Export Administration Regulations (EARs)

The court addresses the government's assertion that the district court made an error in interpreting the Export Administration Regulations (EARs). Dismissing Shih's claim that the district court was wrong in delaying the admission of evidence, the court upholds the decision. Furthermore, the court rejects Shih's argument that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts. After careful examination, the court finds no legal flaws in the counts that Shih argues should be vacated. Notably, the court chooses not to consider an argument raised in Shih's reply brief. Ultimately, the court grants Shih's motion for judicial notice, further solidifying the legal proceedings.