United States v. Richter
796 F.3d 1173
10th Cir.2015Background
- Brandon Richter (CEO) and Tor Olson (VP of Operations) ran Executive Recycling, Inc., a waste removal/recycling firm.
- Government charged them with mail/wire fraud, exporting hazardous waste under RCRA, smuggling hazardous waste, and obstruction of justice.
- The company allegedly exported CRTs overseas to Hong Kong/China despite promises to recycle domestically and lawfully.
- Evidence included the GATU shipment, a 60 Minutes feature, and EPA/ICE/state investigations into improper handling of e-waste.
- District court instructed on Colorado waste regulation Part 273.2(f)(3) with Department Guidance interpreting waste.
- Jury found some charges; Richter was also convicted of obstruction of justice; sentences were imposed prior to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the Waste Instruction | Richter/Olson contend waste definition is misapplied. | Richter/Olson argue instruction relies on Department Guidance and original intended purpose. | Waste Instruction correct under Colorado law; ambiguity resolved in favor of prosecution theory. |
| Fair notice of original intended purpose | Defendants lacked fair notice of an original intended purpose requirement. | Defendants claim the rule is unconstitutionally retroactive given ambiguity. | Defendants had fair notice; Guidancedoc provided notice; due process not violated. |
| Sufficiency of mail/wire fraud proof | Customers’ payments were for disposal services; misrepresentation deprived them of money/property. | No deprivation of money/property; only disappointment in environmental outcomes. | Evidence supports deprivation; but convictions reversed due to prejudicial testimony (Mr. Smith). |
| Evidentiary error from Mr. Smith’s testimony | Smith’s testimony aided government’s theory on waste and processing. | Testimony was improper lay/expert testimony and usurped jury. | Admission was reversible error; prejudicial impact substantial; warrants reversal of smuggling and fraud convictions. |
| Obstruction of justice conviction | Obstruction supported by altered/shredded documents and records requests. | Obstruction theory tainted by waste-definition error; alternative theories insufficient. | Richter’s obstruction conviction affirmed as untainted by error; district court's error did not undermine verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005) (federal fraud statutes cover schemes to obtain payment by false pretenses)
- Granberry, 908 F.2d 278 (8th Cir. 1990) (deprivation of money or property can arise from true misrepresentation to pay for services)
- Leahy, 464 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2006) (payments for services under false pretenses can support fraud convictions)
- Bruchhausen, 977 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1992) (destination of property after sale can affect property interests for fraud)
- Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1993) (knowledge of permit/disposal context expected for regulatory compliance)