IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50705
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM N. GREULING, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(EP-94-CR-385-H)
______________________________________________
August 1, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William N. Greuling, Jr., appeals from his conviction for aiding and abetting violations of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2(A). He contends solely that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of
the parties and hold that the evidence was sufficient for a reaso nable jury to find Greuling guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
FACTS
William Greuling, Jr. is the president and owner of thirty percent of the company stock of El
Paso Plating Works, Inc., an electoplating business historically engaged in plating metal pieces
produced by others for major car manufacturers. In 1994, Greuling and Ray Molina, vice-president,
manager, and forty percent owner of stock, were charged in a twelve-count indictment with various
violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. §
1319(c)(2)(A). The jury returned guilty verdicts against Greuling and Molina on most of the charges,
but acquitted Greuling of the conspiracy charge. The district court sentenced Greuling to twenty-four
months’ imprisonment on each count, with the sentences running concurrently, and fined him $5,000.
Greuling appeals challenging that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
DISCUSSION
The Government’s theory was that Greuling knowingly violated the Clean Water Act by
failing to end the discharge of wastewater from EPPW’s plant into the El Paso sewer system, despite
years of warnings from the Utility . To support a conviction of aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2, the Government must prove that Greuling (1) intentionally and knowingly associated with a
criminal venture, (2) participated in the venture, and (3) sought by his actions to make the venture
succeed. United States v. Beuttenmuller, 29 F.3d 973, 981-82 (5th Cir. 1995). “Association means
that the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal. . . . Participation means that the
defendant engaged in some affirmative conduct designed to aid the venture.” United States v.
Salazar, 66 F.3d 723, 729 (5th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). To prove a violation of the Clean
Water Act, the Government must show that the defendant knowingly violated a requirement imposed
2
in an EPA-approved pretreatment program by discharging wastewater containing pollutants into the
El Paso sewer system. See § 1319(c)(2)(A).
We find that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Bruce Bradbury, the
accountant and officer manager at EPPW, testified that Greuling controlled the financial decisions
at the company. The evidence showed that, although as plant manager Molina controlled operations
at the EPPW plant, he did not have absolute authority. Rather Molina needed Greuling’s approval
in decisions that exceeded the scope of day-to-day operations, especially decisions involving
equipment purchases.
The evidence also showed that Greuling grew up in the electroplating business, as his father
purchased EPPW when Greuling was a child. Greuling had worked at the plant as a teenager, and
he understood the chemicals used in the process and the chemicals present in the wastewater.
Additionally, Greuling admitted on cross examination that he had testified in an unrelated proceeding
to explain how the electroplating process worked.
Further, the evidence showed that Greuling was well aware of the inadequate conditions at
EPPW. There was testimony that the plant’s roof was in very poor condition, that it leaked
excessively, and that water was routinely on the floor. Bruce Freeman, the EPPW’s sales manager,
testified that the plant’s roof leaked “like a sieve” and that Greuling visited the plant often,
particularly when there were problems. Other plant employees testified that they observed Greuling
at the plant. Molina and a fire marshal inspector both testified that Greuling was present at the plant
on occasions when there was liquid on the floor.
The evidence showed that Greuling also was aware that, because of its poor condition, the
EPPW plant had been discharging untreated wastewater into the El Paso sewer system for years. The
3
Utility first issued EPPW a permit in 1984 that allowed the company to discharge wastewater from
its plant into the city’s sewer system, within certain federal and local pretreatment limits. From 1986
to 1988, EPPW was cited by the Utility for discharging wastewater into the sewer system in violation
of the discharge limits set in its permit. Greuling responded by assuring the Utility that he was going
to purchase the necessary equipment to treat the wastewater before it entered the sewer system. By
1989, EPPW’s failure to comply with the regulations caused the Utility to list the company in the
local newspaper as a “significant violator.”
In 1990, the Utility continued to detect violations of discharge limits by the EPPW plant and
continued to notify Greuling of the violations. In May 1990, Greuling attended a hearing concerning
the repeated violations. After the hearing, Greuling signed a contract with the Utility assuring it that
EPPW would cease all industrial discharges into the sewer system by December 14, 1990.
Between May 1990 and the December 1990 cut-off date, the Utility continued to monitor
EPPW’s discharges, and in response to Greuling’s complaints about the Utility’s sampling
procedures, hired an independent contractor to collect the samples. Illegal discharges were detected
in both July and December 1990. In January 1991, in a further effort to bring the company into
compliance with the discharge limits, the Utility excavated the sewer lines outside of the EPPW plant
and replaced them with new piping to protect against the possibility of metals leaking into the
wastestream from corroded piping.
The evidence showed that Greuling understood that the plant needed wastewater treatment
equipment and made promises to the Utility, prior to 1988, to install such equipment. As the years
passed, Greuling repeatedly made similar representations to the Utility that enabled EPPW to
continue operating, including multiple promises that the company would end the discharge problem
4
by disconnecting completely from the sewer system. Greuling failed to have EPPW disconnected
completely from the sewer system. As a result, the improper discharging of untreated wastewater
continued.
The evidence showed that, despite his extensive knowledge of the plant’s ongoing
inadequacies and despite his promises to correct them, Greuling refused to allocate money to
repairing the plant and that he spent the funds EPPW collected for environmental cleanup on other
things. The EPPW sales manager and the EPPW accountant both testified that the company was
profitable, yet, according to Molina, Greuling told him that the company had no funds to spend on
water-treatment equipment. The sales manager, Bruce Freeman, testified that, at one point, the
company included a five-percent surcharge in its billings in order to acquire the funds needed to bring
the plant into compliance with the law. He testified that Greuling sent a letter to EPPW’s clients
explaining that funds from the surcharge would be used to purchase water-treatment equipment and
to otherwise update the plant’s waste-disposal capabilities. Freeman testified:
That 5 percent was supposed to be set in a separate bank account at the end of the
month. If we had had, for round figures, a hundred thousand in billing, we’d probably
have 42, $4500 that should go into a waste disposal account. And Bill [Greuling] and
I had words several times about not -- that it was going into the general fund and not
being used the way that we had told clients that it was going to be used.
Although Greuling did not participate physically in the discharging, as did other plant
employees, including Molina, the evidence established that Greuling knew about the illegal
discharging and that, as chief financial officer of the company, he possessed the exclusive ability to
make the changes necessary to comply with the laws. “An aider and abettor is liable for the criminal
acts that are the ‘natural or probable consequence of the crime’ that he counseled, commanded, or
otherwise encouraged.” United States v. Vaden, 912 F.2d 780, 783 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation
5
omitted). Here, the discharge of wastewater from the EPPW plant was the natural and probable
consequence of Greuling’s exclusive management decisions.
Based on the evidence and testimony, a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable
doubt that Greuling aided and abetted in the illegal discharging of untreated wastewater from the
EPPW plant. See United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982)(en banc), aff’d, 462 U.S.
356 (1983). The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Greuling’s conviction.
6