The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction of Kent Bulloch for conspiracy to violate the Defense Production Act of 1950, rejecting his appeal in a case that represents one of the first significant enforcement actions under wartime production controls during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Second Circuit issued its decision Monday in *United States v. Bulloch*, upholding Bulloch's misdemeanor conviction following a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The case stemmed from Bulloch's involvement in a scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic to buy personal protective equipment in bulk and resell it for profit.
Bulloch was convicted under 50 U.S.C. Section 4512 of the Defense Production Act, a provision that prohibits the accumulation of designated materials beyond reasonable demands during national emergencies. The defendant argued on appeal that the government failed to prove he violated the statute's requirements.
The central issue in the appeal turned on the interpretation of the word "accumulate" within the Defense Production Act. Bulloch contended that the term "accumulate" is interchangeable with "hoard" and means "to gather, collect, or accrue over a period of time." His defense team argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that he acquired PPE over an extended period or intended to withhold PPE from the market for any significant duration.
The appeals court disagreed with Bulloch's narrow interpretation of the statutory language. Circuit Judges Robinson and Merriam heard oral arguments on Sept. 22, 2025, before issuing their decision affirming the lower court's ruling.
The case originated in the Eastern District of New York under case number 1:20CR00181, where Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo and District Judge Eric R. Komitee presided over the proceedings. The district court's decision was issued on Nov. 1, 2024, before Bulloch filed his appeal to the Second Circuit.
The Defense Production Act of 1950 was originally enacted during the Korean War to give the federal government broad powers to direct private industry and control the distribution of materials deemed critical to national defense. The law has been invoked during various national emergencies, including natural disasters and, most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, severe shortages of personal protective equipment created desperate conditions in hospitals and healthcare facilities nationwide. The federal government designated PPE as critical materials under the Defense Production Act, triggering prohibitions on hoarding or accumulating such items beyond reasonable needs.
The prosecution of Bulloch represents part of a broader federal enforcement effort targeting individuals and businesses accused of profiteering from the pandemic-related shortages. The case involved co-defendant William Young Sr., also known as Bill, though the appeals court decision focuses specifically on Bulloch's conviction.
Bulloch was represented on appeal by Jeremy Gutman of New York, while the government's case was handled by prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. The case number 24-2975 reflects the Second Circuit's docket for the appeal filed in 2024.
The Second Circuit's affirmation of the conviction establishes important precedent for how courts will interpret the Defense Production Act's prohibitions on accumulating critical materials during national emergencies. The decision clarifies that the government does not need to prove extended periods of accumulation or specific intent to withhold materials from the market for lengthy durations.
The ruling comes as federal prosecutors continue to pursue cases related to pandemic profiteering and price gouging schemes that emerged during the early months of the COVID-19 crisis. The Defense Production Act provides prosecutors with powerful tools to combat hoarding and price manipulation during national emergencies.
For Bulloch, the affirmation means his misdemeanor conviction will stand. The case demonstrates the federal government's continued commitment to enforcing emergency production controls even as the acute phase of the pandemic has passed.
The decision also provides guidance for future enforcement actions under the Defense Production Act, particularly regarding the threshold for proving violations of the accumulation prohibitions. The Second Circuit's interpretation of the statutory language may influence how similar cases are prosecuted and defended in other federal circuits.
The Defense Production Act remains an active tool in the federal government's emergency response arsenal, with potential applications extending beyond pandemic response to other national security and emergency situations where critical materials shortages could threaten public welfare or national defense interests.