US v. McNab, 331 F. 3d 1228 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2003

During the time period charged in the indictment and the trial before the district court, these Honduran laws were considered valid by the Honduran government.

—and n. 27, 107 S. Ct. 2542, 96 L. Ed. 2d 461 (1987), a federal court should carefully consider a foreign state's views about the meaning of its own laws.

"[T] o determine the common usage or ordinary meaning of a term, courts often turn to dictionary definitions for guidance."

Importantly, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that "[i] f the laws were valid in Honduras during the time period covered by the indictment, the defendants violated the Lacey Act by importing the lobsters in violation of those laws."

Therefore, since the phrase "payments scheduled as contractually due" must be given its ordinary meaning, it is appropriate to refer to the dictionary definition.

—upholding Lacey Act conviction of a defendant who transported lobster parts packaged in violation of Honduran fishing regulations, holding regulations promulgated by foreign governments to protect wildlife are encompassed by the phrase "any foreign law" in the Lacey Act

—conceded that there was no indication that anything untoward had motivated the legal conclusions that Honduras's highest authorities had reached.

Unlike other definitions of terms for tax purposes which often bear little resemblance to their definitions in everyday life,[12] we can rely on the dictionary definition of the word "reasonable" to guide us in evaluating the conduct to which it refers.

The regulatory definition is also consistent with statutory purpose of the Act which is to provide a federal mechanism for enforcing state laws that sought to protect fish, plants, and wildlife but were unable to do so because they could not reach into neighboring states.

Defendant also fails to reference a case where a court has allowed a party to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the interpretation and application of foreign law with speculation, guesswork, and the absence of any competing expert testimony.