United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.
Decision Date | 05 September 2012 |
Docket Number | Criminal Action No. C–06–563. |
Citation | 893 F.Supp.2d 841 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Citgo Refining and Chemicals Company, L.P., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Howard P. Stewart, James B. Nelson, Lary Cook Larson, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, James L. Turner, Financial Litigation, US Attorneys Office, Houston, TX, US Marshal, US Pretrial Services, US Probation, Kenneth A. Cusick, Office of US Attorney, Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiff.
Dick DeGuerin, DeGuerin and Dickson, Catherine Louise Baen, Attorney at Law, James B. Blackburn, Jr., Blackburn Carter PC, Matt Hennessy, Houston, TX, Daniel D. Birk, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, Chicago, IL, Ralph F. Meyer, Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, L.L.P., Corpus Christi, TX, Robert Brager, Beveridge and Diamond PC, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court is Defendants CITGO Petroleum Corporation and CITGO Refining and Chemicals Company, L.P.'s (collectively “CITGO”) Motion to Vacate CITGO's Conviction for Violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Dkt. No. 766), to which the United States of America (“the Government”) has responded(Dkt. No. 770) and CITGO has replied (Dkt. No. 771). Having considered the motion, response, reply, record, and relevant law, the Court is of the opinion that CITGO's motion should be DENIED.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MTBA) makes it unlawful for any person, “at any time, by any means or in any manner,” to take or kill any migratory bird without a permit or as otherwise provided by regulations. 16 U.S.C. § 703(a). The MBTA creates three classes of crimes: (1) a strict liability Class B misdemeanor, Id. § 707(a); (2) a felony for a knowing sale, Id. § 707(b); and (3) a Class A misdemeanor for the placement of bait for the purpose of aiding in taking, Id. § 707(c).
On July 17, 2007, CITGO was convicted of Counts Eight, Nine, and Ten of the Superseding Indictment for unlawfully taking and aiding and abetting the taking of migratory birds. All three convictions were Class B misdemeanors under § 707(a). The Indictment alleged that between April and May of 2003, ten birds were found in two large open-top tanks identified as Tanks 116 and 117 at the CITGO East Refinery Plant, a petroleum refinery owned and operated by CITGO. According to the Indictment, because the birds were found in tanks owned by CITGO, CITGO had taken, or aided and abetted in the taking of, migratory birds in violation of the MTBA.
During the bench trial, the Government introduced testimony and other evidence that migratory birds and the remains of migratory birds were found in Tanks 116 and 117. ( See, e.g., 7/17/2007 Trial Tr. at 161:1–13.) According to the evidence presented at trial, these birds flew into the tanks and died as a result of landing in oil. ( See, e.g., Id. at 182:10–20.) The Court returned a verdict of guilty and entered conviction against CITGO on three counts of violating the MBTA. In a separate jury trial, CITGO was also convicted of failing to install emission control equipment (roofs) on the two tanks where the migratory birds were found, in violation of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413(c)(1) & 7411(e); 40 C.F.R. § 60.692–4.
CITGO now moves the Court to vacate its convictions under the MTBA on the grounds that the Government's Indictment fails to state an offense.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 provides that, “at any time while the case is pending, the court may hear a claim that the indictment or information fails to invoke the court's jurisdiction or to state an offense.” Fed. R. Crim P. 12(b)(3)(B). See also United States v. Oberski, 734 F.2d 1034, 1035 (5th Cir.1984) ().
CITGO argues that the MTBA criminalizes the unlawful taking or killing of migratory birds by hunting, trapping, poaching, or similar means, but it does not criminalize commercial activities in which migratory birds are unintentionally killed as a result of activity completely unrelated to hunting, trapping, or poaching. Because its conduct of operating Tanks 116 and 117 was not directed at the capture of wildlife, CITGO claims that the Indictment failed to state an offense, and the convictions must be vacated. In response, the Government argues that because the MTBA prohibits the taking or killing of a migratory bird “at any time, by any means or in any manner,” 16 U.S.C. § 703(a), the MBTA extends beyond hunting, trapping, or poaching and reaches conduct by corporations that results in the taking and killing of migratory birds. As such, the Government contends that the Indictment in this case was sufficient, and CITGO's convictions should stand.
A number of courts have determined that the MTBA is limited in its intended scope to the types of activities engaged in by hunters and poachers and does not extend to other acts that indirectly or unintentionally cause the death of protected birds. See Newton County Wildlife Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 113 F.3d 110, 115 (8th Cir.1997) () (quoting Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297, 303 (9th Cir.1991)); United States v. Brigham Oil & Gas L.P., 840 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1211 (D.N.D.2012) (); United States v. Chevron, 2009 WL 3645170, *3 (W.D.La. Oct. 30, 2009) (); Mahler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 927 F.Supp. 1559, 1579 (S.D.Ind.1996) () ; Citizens Interested in Bull Run, Inc. v. Edrington, 781 F.Supp. 1502, 1510 (D.Or.1991) ().
An almost equal number of courts, however, have explicitly rejected the argument that the MTBA is limited to activities such as hunting, trapping, and poaching, but instead reaches other conduct that results in the taking and killing of migratory birds. For example, in Corbin Farm Service, the court held that the MTBA applied to defendants that accidentally poisoned migratory ducks by applying pesticide to an alfalfa field, noting that § 703 made it illegal to kill migratory birds “by any means or in any manner.” United States v. Corbin Farm Serv., 444 F.Supp. 510, 532 (E.D.Cal.1978), aff'd on other grounds,578 F.2d 259 (9th Cir.1978). The court examined the MBTA's legislative history and concluded:
The fact that Congress was primarily concerned with hunting does not, however, indicate that hunting was its sole concern. Paring the language of section 703 down to its essentials, the section makes it illegal ‘at any time, by any means or in any manner, to ... kill ... any migratory bird ....’ The use of the broad language ‘by any means or in any manner’ belies the contention that Congress intended to limit the imposition of criminal penalties to those who hunted or captured migratory birds. Moreover, a number of songbirds and other birds not commonly hunted are protected by the conventions and so by the Act; Congress imposed criminal penalties on those who killed these birds as well as on persons who hunted game birds. The legislative history of the Act reveals no intention to limit the Act so that it would not apply to poisoning.
Similarly, the court in Moon Lake held that the MTBA applied to the actions of a rural electrical distribution cooperative in failing to take protective measures to prevent migratory birds from being electrocuted by its power lines, also recognizing that § 703 made it illegal to kill migratory birds “at any time, by any means or in any manner.” United States v. Moon Lake Electric Ass'n, Inc., 45 F.Supp.2d 1070, 1074 (D.Colo.1999). The Court explained that “[i]In proscribing the acts of taking, capturing, killing, possessing, selling, purchasing, importing, exporting and transporting, Congress expressed a clear intent to proscribe conduct beyond that associated only with hunting, trapping or poaching.” Id. See also United States v. Van Fossan, 899 F.2d 636, 637 (7th Cir.1990) ( ); United States v. FMC Corp., 572 F.2d 902, 908 (2d Cir.1978) ( ); United States v. Apollo Energies, Inc., 611 F.3d 679 (10th Cir.2010) ( ); United States v. Rollins, 706 F.Supp. 742, 745 (D.Idaho 1989) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. Beaudreau
...migratory birds were discovered lodged in a piece of their oil drilling equipment called a heater-treater.”); United States v. CITGO, 893 F.Supp.2d 841, 842 (S.D.Tex.2012) (“According to the Indictment, ... [killed migratory] birds were found in tanks owned by [the defendants].”); United St......
-
United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp.
...for “taking” migratory birds. The district court denied CITGO's motion to vacate these convictions. United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp. (MBTA Opinion ), 893 F.Supp.2d 841 (S.D.Tex.2012). The court sentenced CITGO to a $2 million fine for the Clean Air Act counts and $15,000 for each MBTA......
-
Fifth Circuit Limits The Scope Of The 'Take' Prohibition Under The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Rejecting Second And Tenth Circuit's Interpretations
...more activities than hunting, poaching, and intentional acts against migratory birds. See United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 893 F. Supp. 2d 841, 842-43 (S.D. Tex. 2012). In contrast, the Fifth Circuit found that although the MBTA imposes a strict liability standard for any of the afor......
-
Specific Environmental Statutes
...conviction is obtained. 545 536. 611 F.3d 679, 690 (10th Cir. 2010). 537. Id. at 691. See also United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 893 F.Supp.2d 841, 848 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (upholding defendant’s conviction under the MBTA when migratory birds were trapped in layers of oil in defendant’s t......
-
A Pendulum Seldom Stops in the Middle: Shifting Views on 'Take' of Raptors and Other Migratory Birds
...two circuit courts that have held that the MBTA prohibits incidental take, 96. Id. at 4. 97. 45 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. Colo. 1999). 98. 893 F. Supp. 2d 841, 847, 42 ELR 20237 (S.D. Tex. 2012). 99. National Audubon Society et al. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior et al . , 1:18-cv-04061 (S.D.N.Y. ......
-
A Murder Most Fowl: United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 801 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2015), and Incidental Killings Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
...Clean Air Act requires equalization tanks to be covered). 99. Id. at 480-81 (citing United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp. (CITGO I), 893 F. Supp. 2d 841, 848 (S.D. Tex. 2012)) (summarizing the district court's 100. CITGO I, 893 F. Supp. 2d at 848. 101. Id. 102. See generally Seattle Audubo......
-
TAKING A PECK OUT OF PROTECTION: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT SPELLS TROUBLE FOR BIRDS AFFECTED BY INDUSTRY.
...(185) See 113 F.3d 110 (8th Cir. 1999). (186) Id. at 112. (187) Id. at 115. (188) Id. (189) United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 893 F. Supp. 2d 841, 842 (S.D. Tex. 2012). (190) Id. at 847. (191) Id. at 847-48. (192) Id. at 848. (193) United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 801 F.3d 477,......