United States v. Pruett
681 F.3d 232
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Pruett served as president/CEO of LLWC and LWC Management, operating 28 wastewater facilities.
- Facilities required NPDES permits and effluent monitoring with sampling, reporting, and record-keeping duties.
- EPA/LDEQ inspections in Nov 2007 revealed violations at six facilities including Love Estates; criminal charges followed.
- Indictment charged four categories: operation/maintenance failures, improper monitoring, excess discharges, and unpermitted discharges; several counts dismissed.
- Trial lasted ten days; jury found some counts guilty (felony and misdemeanor) and acquitted others; sentences included fines and combined terms of imprisonment.
- Appeal followed challenging sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions on negligence, evidentiary rulings, mid-trial juror replacement, and sentencing enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for felony effluent/records violations | Pruett/LLWC argued insufficient intent shown | Defense asserted lack of proof of knowing conduct | Sufficient evidence supported felony convictions over Love Estates and records violations |
| Whether the negligence jury instruction required gross negligence | CWA §1319(c)(1)(A) requires gross negligence | Ordinary negligence suffices per statute and circuit precedent | Ordinary negligence standard applied; district court instruction proper |
| Admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence of uncharged conduct | Evidence probative of intent; probative value outweighed prejudice | Evidence overly prejudicial and untimely | District court properly admitted the Rule 404(b) evidence under Beechum balancing |
| Impeachment of witness Smith using Rule 609(a)(2) conviction for larceny | Prior conviction admissible to attack truthfulness | Larceny not a crimen falsi crime; not admissible | District court correctly precluded cross-exam on Smith's larceny conviction; not admissible under Rule 609(a)(2) |
| Replacement of juror during trial and Rule 24(c) discretion | Replacement violated defendant's right to a full trial | Juror was unable to perform duties; replacement permissible | District court did not abuse discretion; juror replaced due to inability to perform |
| Application of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 abuse-of-trust enhancement | Enhancement warranted by Pruett’s position of trust facilitating offenses | Argument insufficient to show significant facilitation | District court’s § 3B1.3 enhancement upheld; not clearly erroneous |
| Reasonableness of fines under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2) | Fines per violation were proper | Fines may be excessive or misapplied across offenses | Fines held reasonable and properly calculated per day of violation; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 2009) (de novo sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- United States v. Greuling, 1996 WL 460109 (5th Cir. 1996) (evidence of intent and substantial experience support knowledge)
- United States v. Hanousek, 176 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1999) (ordinary negligence standard under §1319(c)(1)(A))
- United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2005) (plain language supports ordinary negligence standard)
- United States v. O'Keefe, 426 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2005) (example of strict reliance on plain language in negligence terms)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, 530 U.S. 1 (2000) (plain meaning governs when statute language is clear)
- Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (test for admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Miller, 607 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard for abuse-of-trust § 3B1.3)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences under Booker)