United States v. King
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20020
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- King managed Double C Farms, a large Idaho farming and cattle operation with extensive irrigated cropland and a 25-acre feedlot.
- In 1987, King applied to Idaho for a permit to inject winter runoff into a deep 500-foot well; Idaho denied the permit in 2000.
- In May 2005, an Idaho Department of Agriculture inspector observed a ruptured waste pond, an uncapped pipe, and wastewater flowing into a ditch at the Double C facility; a main irrigator advised questions about backflow valves.
- During the June 2, 2005 investigation, Klimes and others observed backflow valves at Wells One and Four installed incorrectly, and later King made a false statement to Klimes about Well Five’s valve.
- In February 2008, the government charged King with four SDWA counts for willfully injecting water into deep wells without a permit and one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2); a jury convicted on all five counts.
- King appealed challenging SDWA elements, Idaho’s permit incorporation, Commerce Clause authority, § 1001 jurisdiction, and the district court’s denial of a new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Element of USDW connection for §300h-2(b)(2) | King contends USDW connection must be proven. | King argues SDWA requires proof of impact on USDW. | Gov’t need prove only lack of permit; USDW impact not required. |
| Idaho permit requirement as part of SDWA program | Idaho permitting may exceed SDWA scope, invalidating §300h-2(b)(2) conviction. | Idaho’s permitting process was incorporated into the SDWA program. | Idaho permitting is incorporated and valid under SDWA. |
| Commerce Clause authority of §300h-2(b)(2) | SDWA exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power. | SDWA regulation of injections substantially affects interstate commerce. | §300h-2(b)(2) constitutional under Commerce Clause. |
| Jurisdiction under §1001(a)(2) | False statement to a state inspector must relate to federal matters. | Statement to inspector constitutes matter within US jurisdiction. | False statement to a state agricultural inspector is within US jurisdiction for §1001(a)(2). |
| Motion for a new trial based on pretrial order and testimony | Pretrial order and alleged manipulation taint trial. | Any references were harmless or cured by instructions; no prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; new trial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (commerce power limits; school zone statute as control example)
- Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (aggregate intrastate activity affects interstate commerce)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal regulation of intrastate activity with interstate effects)
- Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 133 (1971) (permissible breadth of federal criminal statutes)
- United States v. Oren, 893 F.2d 1057 (1990) (jurisdiction under §1001(a)(2) where false statement relates to federal inquiry)
- United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475 (1984) (jurisdiction extends where federal government has authority)
- Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) (scope of agency jurisdiction for false statements)
- United States v. Facchini, 874 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1989) (jurisdiction in §1001 context; connection to agency function)
- United States v. Green, 745 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1985) (broad interpretation of jurisdiction for §1001)