## Facts

- J. Jeffrey Pruett was president and CEO of Louisiana Land & Water Company (LLWC) and LWC Management Company, Inc., and oversaw operations of 28 wastewater treatment facilities in northern Louisiana.
- The facilities discharged treated effluent under NPDES permits administered by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, which imposed effluent limits and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping duties, including submitting discharge monitoring reports and retaining records for inspection.
- Beginning in November 2007, EPA and state inspectors conducted inspections and documented noncompliance at multiple locations; six facilities became the focus: Bayou Galion, Charmingdale, Donovan Woods/Daywood, Fleetwood Park, Love Estates, and Pine Bayou.
- A federal indictment charged Clean Water Act violations in several categories: failure to properly operate and maintain facilities, failure to maintain required monitoring records, discharges exceeding permit limits, and unpermitted discharges.
- After the government dismissed several counts, a ten-day jury trial proceeded; jurors were instructed they could convict on each count as a knowing violation (felony), a negligent violation (misdemeanor), or acquit.
- The jury convicted all appellants of a knowing effluent-limit violation at Love Estates, convicted Pruett and LLWC of knowing recordkeeping violations at all six facilities, and convicted Pruett of a negligent operation-and-maintenance violation at Pine Bayou; defendants were acquitted on the remaining counts.
- The district court sentenced Pruett to 21 months’ imprisonment on felony counts and a concurrent 12-month misdemeanor term and imposed fines totaling $310,000 on Pruett, $300,000 on LLWC, and $240,000 on LWC Management, with joint-and-several liability across appellants.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for knowing Clean Water Act violations involving effluent-limit exceedances and recordkeeping failures.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Pruett’s misdemeanor conviction for negligent operation and maintenance at Pine Bayou.
3. Whether the jury instruction defining “negligently” as ordinary negligence misstated the mens rea for Clean Water Act misdemeanors.
4. Whether a witness’s prior federal conviction for larceny under 18 U.S.C. § 641 was automatically admissible for impeachment as a crime of dishonesty under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2).
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion in other evidentiary rulings, including admitting uncharged-conduct evidence and certain character-related evidence.
6. Whether dismissing a juror for transportation-related attendance problems required reversal.
7. Whether the district court properly applied a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 enhancement for abuse of a position of trust.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences in full.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find knowing violations based on repeated noncompliance, documented inspections, and defendants’ managerial control over operations and compliance functions.
- The court held the evidence supported the negligent operation-and-maintenance conviction because Pruett had notice of operational deficiencies and failed to take reasonable corrective action.
- The court approved an ordinary-negligence instruction for Clean Water Act misdemeanor liability.
- The court upheld exclusion of the § 641 larceny conviction for impeachment under Rule 609(a)(2), concluding the offense is not categorically a crime requiring deceit or false statement.
- The court found no reversible abuse of discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings and no prejudice from the juror’s dismissal.
- The court upheld the abuse-of-trust enhancement, concluding Pruett’s role and discretion in operating regulated wastewater facilities significantly facilitated the offenses and their concealment.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient if, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1), “negligently” requires ordinary negligence unless Congress specifies a higher standard.
- Under Rule 609(a)(2), automatic admissibility turns on whether the elements of the prior offense necessarily involve deceit, falsification, or a false statement; offenses that can be committed without deceit are not automatically admissible.
- A district court has broad discretion under Rules 403 and related doctrines to admit relevant other-acts evidence to prove knowledge or intent where the probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- A trial court may excuse a juror for good cause when continued service is impracticable, absent a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant.
- U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 applies when the defendant occupies a position of trust that provides substantial discretion and significantly facilitates commission or concealment of the offense.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Clean Water Act felony and misdemeanor convictions and related sentences arising from wastewater permit noncompliance, holding that ordinary negligence satisfies the misdemeanor mens rea, theft under 18 U.S.C. § 641 is not per se admissible under Rule 609(a)(2), and the district court did not commit reversible error in evidentiary, juror, or sentencing rulings.


United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012)