USA v. Qiao Chu, No. 18-10023 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-10023 Date Filed: 06/18/2018 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10023 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00286-MMH-MCR-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus QIAO CHU, a.k.a. “Dott”, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (June 18, 2018) Case: 18-10023 Date Filed: 06/18/2018 Page: 2 of 3 Before WILSON, JORDAN and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendant Qiao Chu and two codefendants originally were charged with various offenses relating to an alleged conspiracy to unlawfully import into the United States Chinese honey mislabeled as rice fructose syrup. Prior to trial, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to exclude the government’s expert witness on the issue of the percent of honey by weight in the imported substances. After briefly pursuing and then dismissing an interlocutory appeal, the government voluntarily dismissed all charges against defendant Chu and his two codefendants. Defendant Chu then filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. No. 105-119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519 (1997) (reprinted in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, historical and statutory notes). The district court denied Chu’s motion, concluding that, apart from the government expert’s unreliable microscopic analysis of the imported substances, “the government had a reasonable basis for its prosecution” and that defendant Chu had not carried his burden to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence that the government’s overall litigating position was frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.” After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the Court concludes that defendant Chu has not shown reversible error in the district court’s denial of his 2 Case: 18-10023 Date Filed: 06/18/2018 Page: 3 of 3 motion under the Hyde Amendment. The Court affirms that denial based on the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order dated December 19, 2017. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
