United States v. John Tuma, 738 F.3d 681

Background

Tuma was convicted in a Clean Water Act case for discharging untreated wastewater from Arkla Disposal Services in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Arkla held a permit to discharge to the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) with limits on pH, oil, grease, BOD, and TSS; Tank B-1 discharge required sampling and approval before release.
Between 2006 and 2008 Arkla allegedly discharged untreated water into the Red River and POTW after initially accepting only industrial waste, aided by employees including Cody, Cage, and Mallet, under Tuma’s direction.
CCS Midstream purchased Arkla in 2006, with Tuma maintaining control of Arkla post-sale, and CCS reported misconduct to the EPA leading to investigations.
Cody pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and testified against Tuma; the jury convicted Tuma on all counts after an eight-day trial; sentence included concurrent terms and restitution-like fines.
On appeal, Tuma challenges evidentiary rulings, the denial of a Rule 15 deposition, cross-examination restrictions, and several sentencing enhancements under the Guidelines.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of certain trial evidence was reversible error	Tuma contends exclusion undermined his defense by omitting lack of environmental harm and plant-process explanations.	Tuma argues the missing evidence could have rebutted government's witnesses and established lack of harm.	Harmless error; no impact on substantial rights; evidence not necessary to prove offenses.
Whether denial of Rule 15(a) deposition of CCS CEO violated compulsory process	Tuma asserts necessity of foreign CEO deposition for defense.	CCS CEO deposition was not exceptional; district court did not abuse discretion.	No compulsory-process violation; no abuse of discretion; error, if any, harmless.
Whether limitations on cross-examination and exclusion of witnesses violated Confrontation Clause or deprived defense	Tuma claims cross-examination restrictions and witness exclusions impaired credibility and defense.	Court properly limited custodial-related testimony; balance of probative value vs. prejudice favored exclusion.	No constitutional violation; record shows sufficient information for jury to assess bias; no plain error.
Whether sentencing enhancements under § 2Q1.3 and related provisions were proper, including Alleyne applicability	Tuma contends enhancements for ongoing discharges and presumed environmental harm were misapplied; Alleyne issue asserted.	District court properly applied enhancements; Alleyne does not apply because no mandatory minimum sentence.	Enhancements properly applied; Alleyne does not control; no reversible error.
Whether the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing and in fashioning a reasonable sentence	Tuma argues for an evidentiary hearing on environmental harm and challenges overall reasonableness.	Judge adequately reviewed PSR objections and arguments; no abuse of discretion in sentencing.	No abuse of discretion; within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. George, 201 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2000) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; harmless error applies)
United States v. Shows, 307 F. App’x 818 (5th Cir. 2009) (harmless error with respect to evidentiary exclusion)
United States v. Lowery, 135 F.3d 957 (5th Cir. 1998) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Garcia-Macias, 206 F. App’x 376 (5th Cir. 2006) (jury could still convict despite excluded testimony)
United States v. Zabaneh, 837 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir. 1988) (compulsory process rights in foreign witness contexts)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (constitutional requirement for jury finding of facts only when mandatory minimums; not applicable here)
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjury-based enhancements do not violate right to testify)
United States v. Ho, 311 F.3d 589 (5th Cir. 2002) (organization-extensive analysis for § 3B1.1)
United States v. Fullwood, 342 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2003) (factors for determining whether an offense is 'otherwise extensive')
United States v. Reagan, No. 09-2523 (5th Cir. 2010) (addressing preservation and review of guideline-based arguments)