States v. Hagen, 782 F.Supp. 1351, 1365 (D.Neb.1991). The fact that the Lacey Act refers to state law does not affect the federal statute of limitations analysis. Although Lacey Act offenses are predicated upon violations of state law, the statute nowhere states that a viable or prosecutable state law violation is necessary to support federal charges. Instead, the Act simply requires that the fish or wildlife have been obtained “in violation of any law or regulation of any State.” 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(A). This provision incorporates the substantive elements of state law in describing a distinct federal offense, but it “is not designed to incorporate state procedural law.” Thomas, 887 F.2d at 1349 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Licavoli, 725 F.2d 1040, 1047 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Because the running of the state statute of
holding that the national parks act does not incorporate state procedural housekeeping rules such as rules of evidence or civil procedure but the act does incorporate outcome determinative state law holding that ricos reference to state law is not meant to incorporate state procedural law holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law