United States v. Huntress
1:13-cr-00199
W.D.N.Y.Feb 13, 2015Background
- Defendants (Huntress, Acquest Development LLC, Acquest Transit, LLLC) indicted on five counts: conspiracy to impede EPA enforcement, obstruction (18 U.S.C. §1519), concealment and false statements (18 U.S.C. §1001), and criminal contempt (18 U.S.C. §401(3)).
- Government alleged Defendants conducted mechanized earthmoving that discharged fill material (a pollutant) into "potential wetlands," triggering EPA inquiries under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment arguing (inter alia) the indictment fails to allege EPA had authority to make the inquiries, that the contempt charge should be handled in the civil proceeding, that the land was prior-converted (PC) cropland, and that a permit-shield defense bars liability.
- Magistrate Judge McCarthy recommended denying the motion to dismiss; Defendants filed objections. The district court reviewed de novo and accepted the Report and Recommendation in full, denying the objections.
- Court held the indictment adequately alleges EPA authority to inquire under 33 U.S.C. §1318(a) (investigative authority), and that challenges about whether the land is PC cropland, the permit-shield defense, or ultimate facts are premature on a facial sufficiency motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPA authority to inquire underlying Title 18 charges | Indictment alleges EPA authority to investigate applicability of CWA and thus may demand information | Indictment fails to allege EPA had authority to make inquiries (no established jurisdiction over wetlands/point source) | Held: Allegations that EPA could investigate "potential wetlands," suspected pollutant (fill) and point source suffice; indictment facially valid |
| Contempt charge (Count 5) | Government: criminal contempt charge for violating preliminary injunction is proper | Defendants: violation should be addressed civilly in related case; dismissal warranted | Held: Objection not timely before magistrate; court declines to consider belated argument and denies dismissal |
| Prior-converted (PC) cropland status | Government: indictment need not resolve PC status at pleading stage; EPA may investigate potential wetlands | Defendants: land is PC cropland (excluded from CWA) or at least indictment fails to allege otherwise | Held: Whether land is PC cropland is a factual defense; indictment adequately alleges EPA inquiry into potential wetlands, so motion to dismiss denied |
| Permit-shield defense | Government: permit-shield (if any) is a defense, not a defect in the indictment | Defendants: prior civil rulings limit collateral criminal charges because permits shield conduct | Held: Permit-shield is a defense, immaterial to facial sufficiency of indictment; motion to dismiss denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (agency jurisdiction not to be narrowly construed for fraudulent statement charges)
- De La Pava v. United States, 268 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2001) (indictment must give enough detail to permit future double jeopardy pleas; common sense governs pleading)
- United States v. Goodwin, 141 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 1997) (indictment sufficiency standards)
- United States v. Gardin, 451 F. Supp. 2d 504 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (magistrate report review standards under §636)
- United States v. Alfonso, 143 F.3d 772 (2d Cir. 1998) (court on motion to dismiss must assume indictment allegations true and not consider evidence)
- United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2001) (collateral order doctrine and interlocutory appeals in criminal cases)