United States v. Canal Barge Co., Inc.
631 F.3d 347
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- June 16, 2005 benzene leak aboard Canal Barge; failure to immediately notify Coast Guard; spill patched and barge moved from Mississippi to Ohio River; notification occurred June 20; vessel eventually docked and leak repaired; Western District of Kentucky charged Canal Barge, Scarborough, Barnes, Martin with PWSA and related offenses; district court granted acquittal on venue grounds; on appeal Sixth Circuit held venue proper in WD Ky as continuing offense.
- Barge moved upriver, patch failed on June 20, Coast Guard notified in Louisville, Kentucky; environmental crews cleaned benzene; case involved conspiracy to violate PWSA and negligent violation of CWA; trial produced guilty on Count 2 but acquittals on others.
- Indictment argued venue lay where hazard continued unreported; district court erred in treating violation as point-in-time; court analyzed continuing-offense doctrine for venue under 18 U.S.C. §3237(a).
- Court treated notification violation as continuing offense for venue purposes, grounding venue in WD Ky.
- On appeal, majority reversed as to venue, addressing continuing-offense theory; the remainder of the disputes included sufficiency of evidence and motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PWSA violation is a continuing offense under §3237(a) | Government argues continuing offense; venue proper in WD Ky | Canal Barge argues point-in-time offense | Yes; venue proper in WD Ky |
| Whether the PWSA violation falls under §3237(a)(2) (interstate commerce) | Government alternative theory | Defense challenges applicability | Not addressed; §3237(a)(1) controls |
| Sufficiency of evidence for hazardous condition and willfulness | Government satisfied all elements | Evidence insufficient or contested | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction on PWSA violation |
| Whether denial of a new trial was an abuse of discretion | N/A | Weight of evidence argued against verdict | Not an abuse; no extraordinary circumstances shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273 (1944) (continuing-offense doctrine for venue; broad venue reach when offense extended)
- United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405 (1958) (continuing offense concept in venue; not limited to statute of limitations)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (1999) (continued applicability of continuing-offense theory across districts)
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) (statute-of-limitations context; not venue but discussed continuing/offense notion)
- United States v. Del Percio, 870 F.2d 1090 (1989) (statute of limitations, distinguishable from venue)
- United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1985) (hazard-notice considerations across districts; venue interests)
- United States v. Salinas, 373 F.3d 161 (1st Cir. 2004) (rejects expanding venue via continuing-offense theory where not warranted)
- Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010) (lenity deference; applies when statute ambiguous after canons, not here)