FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUL 06, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-12077

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-20072-CR-ASG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

RICK DEAN STICKLE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(July 6, 2006)

Before ANDERSON, FAY and SILER*, Circuit Judges.

FAY, Circuit Judge:

____________________

*Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting

by designation.
2

This case involves the deliberate pollution of international waters and

whether this defendant was properly charged and tried in this district court.

Appellant appeals his convictions for one count of conspiring to violate the laws

of the United States and one count of knowingly discharging an oily mixture into

the sea without an oil discharge monitoring system. Rick Dean Stickle was the

Chairman and Owner of Sabine Transportation Company, which managed and

operated oceangoing vessels engaged in transporting various cargoes. While

crossing the South China Sea on a return voyage to the United States, laborers of

the S.S. Juneau discharged contaminated wheat and diesel fuel into the sea without

the use of an oil monitoring and discharge control system. Stickle was tried by a

jury which adjudicated him guilty on both counts. He contends that the indictment

should have been dismissed because the Juneau was not a freight vessel as defined

in the charged statutes. He further asserts that the government was required to

prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt and that the evidence presented at trial

was insufficient to establish venue in the Southern District of Florida. Finding no

merit in these contentions, we affirm.

I. Factual Background

Sabine Transportation Company (“Sabine”) owned, managed and operated a

fleet of older tank ships used to transport cargo. Sabine is one of several
3

corporations headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, collectively known as Stickle

Enterprises. Rick Dean Stickle was the Owner and Chairman of Stickle

Enterprises. Stickle was an intensely hands-on manager who regularly involved

himself in the business’ daily operations and decision making. Stickle and the

operation managers were in constant communication with their vessels either by

fax, email or telephone. In addition, Stickle met with operation managers on a

daily basis to discuss the daily reports from vessels at sea. 

In 1998, Sabine purchased the S.S. Juneau, an aging, single-hulled vessel,

originally built as an oil tanker. The Juneau was immediately designated to carry a

cargo of wheat for CARE and World Food Programs from Portland, Oregon to

Bangladesh. Sabine purchased the Juneau with the intention of making a single

trip to transport wheat abroad. In order to accomplish this trip, Sabine had the

Coast Guard certify the Juneau to carry wheat (as opposed to oil), that is, certify

the Juneau as a freight vessel, rather than an oil tanker. The United States Coast

Guard conducted an inspection and issued a Certificate of Inspection (“COI”)

making it lawful for the Juneau to operate as a freight vessel for this single trip. In

addition to a COI, United States Vessels that travel overseas must comply with

international requirements. The Juneau needed an International Oil Pollution

Prevention Certificate (“IOPP”). There are two types of IOPP certificates: Form A,
4

for ships other than oil tankers, and Form B, for oil tankers. Because Sabine

elected to operate the Juneau as a freight vessel, the Coast Guard issued it a Form

A.

On October 27, 1998, under the control of Captain Stuart Valentine, the S.S.

Juneau started its voyage from Portland, Oregon to Bangladesh. Consistent with

the COI, the Juneau’s cargo consisted of 113,000 metric tons of wheat. En route to

Bangladesh, the Juneau stopped in Singapore to load diesel fuel. This fuel was to

be used to run several evacuators which would be used to offload the ship’s cargo.

When the Juneau arrived in Bangladesh in December, 1998, crew members

discovered that diesel fuel had leaked into the cargo deck and contaminated the

grain. Approximately 9000 gallons of diesel fuel leaked from the starboard slop

tank into the bottom of the cargo tank, saturating about 440 metric tons of the

wheat cargo. Delivery of the contaminated wheat was refused by Bangladeshi

purchasers. At this point in time, the operators of the S.S. Juneau had to decide

what to do with the worthless, contaminated cargo. Bangladesh regulations require

contaminated portions of food cargoes to be discharged and destroyed while the

vessel is still in port. This requirement was established because too many vessels

were disposing of their waste in Bangladeshi waters. The operators of the Juneau,

concerned with the expense and delay in disposing of the contaminated cargo
5

ashore, decided to leave Bangladesh with the contaminated portion of the wheat

still in the cargo tank.

Realizing that the fuel had been absorbed into the wheat, making it

impossible for crew members to drain the cargo tank and save the grain, the crew

contacted headquarters in Iowa. Captain Valentine revealed the problem and

advocated discharging the contaminated wheat directly overboard en route to

Singapore. Sabine managers discussed this option directly with Stickle; however

the S.S. Juneau was unable to secure the required laborers in Bangladesh to ride

with the ship and assist in the planned illegal dumping. 

As the Juneau was sailing toward Singapore, Sabine headquarters instructed

Port Engineer, Michael Krider, to start negotiations and try to solicit a bid for

onshore disposal of the contaminated grain. Stickle spoke with Krider and told

him to report all information of prospective bids directly to him. The first initial

bid was in the amount of $139,000. Krider informed Stickle of this price. Strickle

responded by saying that the bid was too high and that the oil-contaminated grain

would be disposed of at sea. Throughout the next month Stickle, Michael Reeve

(“Reeve”), and John Karayannides (“Karayannides”), all directors of Sabine,

discussed other disposal options. One option discussed was an attempt to

introduce water in the cargo deck and create a “slurry” out of the water and
6

contaminated wheat. However it was determined that this option was not feasible

because the oil discharge monitoring device (“ODM”) was not operational and had

not been inspected by the Coast Guard. During January, 1998, Krider informed

Stickle of several other bids for off-shore and on-shore disposal. Each time,

Stickle responded by saying that the bids were too high and that “they could stick

the bid.” Finally, after deciding that any legal disposal of the contaminated grain

would be too costly, at the instruction of Stickle, Karayannides made arrangements

for 15 Bulgarian laborers to join the ship in Singapore and assist in disposing of

the contaminated grain illegally into the sea.

Shortly thereafter, Krider and Karayannides started creating a false

explanation for the disposal of the contaminated grain. On January 25, 1998,

Karayannides called the Seattle Coast Guard and spoke with Lieutenant Jane

Wong (“Wong”). Karayannides explained that the fuel had somehow breached the

vessels fuel tank and leaked into the cargo tank. He then said that he was trying to

figure out how to remove the final “oil residues.” At no time did Karayannides

ever discuss the real problem, which was the 440 metric tons of contaminated

grain. Karayannides inquired about the use of an ODM under 33 C.F.R. § 157.37,

the regulation that applies to discharges from oil tankers. Wong responded by

saying that the Juneau was certified as a freight vessel and was not inspected as a
7

oil tanker. Wong then explained all the additional steps that needed to be taken

before the Juneau could be utilized as an oil tanker under the regulations. Wong

further stated that the Juneau did not have a Form B IOPP certificate because it

was listed and inspected as a freight vessel. After discussing this information with

Wong, Karayannides sent Wong a letter that confirmed their conversation. Wong,

believing that Karayannides’ letter did not accurately portray their conversation,

sent a return letter to Karayannides. In her letter, Wong made clear that before the

S.S. Juneau could “return ... to operation as a tank vessel” and discharge any

residue pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 157.37, it “must obtain a new COI authorizing

service as a tank vessel” and “must obtain a Form B supplement for the IOPP.” It

is undisputed that the S.S. Juneau never obtained a new COI or Form B

supplement for the IOPP.

On January 30, 1998, before the Juneau was to commence the discharge of

the contaminated wheat and fuel into the South China Sea, the Juneau acquired a

new Captain, George McKay (“McKay”). When McKay boarded the ship he soon

realized that the vessel carried tons of contaminated grain. After McKay spoke

with Philip Hitchens (the Juneau’s Chief Officer) he learned of the plan to dispose

of the contaminated wheat into the sea. The next day the Juneau set sail from

Singapore en route to Portland. For the next 6 days laborers used evacuators to
8

suck up the contaminated grain from the cargo tank and discharge it overboard

into the South China Sea. When the grain was too dense to fit through the

evacuators the laborers hauled the contaminated grain up to the deck using a

manual bucket and pulley system. In daily correspondences with headquarters in

Iowa, McKay discussed the progress of the illegal dumping. It is undisputed that

the Juneau did not utilize a certified ODM when discharging this grain into the

sea. After all of the contaminated grain was dumped overboard, the cargo tank was

flushed and discharged into the ocean. 

The Juneau arrived in Portland on March 5, 1999. Shortly thereafter,

Hitchens and other crew members learned that the Coast Guard was coming to

inspect the vessel. Over the next couple of months the Coast Guard interviewed

Juneau crew members. McKay, Hitchens and other crew members sought to

minimize the effect of the contamination by falsely stating that the grain was

contaminated by sea water rather than diesel fuel. Based upon these initial

interviews, the Coast Guard opened a criminal investigation. In April 1999, the

Federal Bureau of Investigation(“FBI”) joined the investigation. The FBI

interviewed Hitchens in West Palm Beach, which is located in the Southern

District of Florida. During that interview, Hitchens lied to the FBI agents by

stating that there “were only traces” of oil in the contaminated grain. Hitchens
9

sought to minimize the extent of the contamination of the grain which was

discharged from the Juneau and to coverup the deliberate unlawful pollution. 

Immediately following the interview, Hitchens called Sabine headquarters to

report the discussion. 

Ultimately, on May 27, 1999, Sabine sent a letter to the Coast Guard

responding to the criminal investigation. The letter stated, “If the environmental

statutes were in fact violated, the violation occurred without the knowledge,

authorization, or consent of the shore based management of the company.” This

letter was sent even though Sabine management knew the statement was false.

II. Issues

Stickle raises four issues:

1. Whether the indictment properly charged him with violating 33

C.F.R. § 151.10(a), by knowingly discharging diesel-contaminated

wheat and fuel from the Juneau, a freight vessel, into the South China

Sea without any discharging monitoring prevention device.

2. Does the government need to prove venue by a preponderance of the

evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

3. Was the evidence that a co-conspirator made a false statement to an
10

FBI agent sufficient to establish venue in the Southern District of

Florida for count I of the indictment?

4. Whether the government established venue under 18 U.S.C. § 3238

for count II of the indictment in the Southern District of Florida, the

district of the last known residence of one of the joint offenders,

where the offense was committed upon the high seas.

III. Standard of Review

This court reviews the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal as well

as the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury’s verdict de novo. See United

States v. Pistone, 177 F.3d 957, 958 (11thCir. 1999). When venue is challenged,

this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and

makes all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury verdict.

United States v. Breitweiser, 357 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11thCir. 2004). A district

court’s denial of a motion for improper venue is a question of law and subject to

de novo review. See United States v. Muench, 153 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11thCir.

1998).

IV. Analysis
11

Before we address the merits of this appeal, we turn our attention to the

difference between the regulatory provisions that address freight vessels and those

controlling oil tankers. According to Federal Regulations, the United States Coast

Guard has several provisions which deal with navigation and navigable waters.

Most of these provisions were created to protect the ocean environment from oil

tankers that were discharging considerable amounts of oil into the sea without the

use of a discharging monitoring system. Understanding that oil tankers travel for

months across the ocean with a significant amount of oil, the Coast Guard created

regulations which allowed certain amounts of oil to be legally discharged into the

sea through an oil discharging monitoring system. This device is termed an ODM.

In order to utilized these provisions, a vessel must comply with several

requirements: (1) a vessel must be certified by the Coast Guard as a oil tanker, (2)

the Coast Guard must inspect the vessels ODM to see if the device is functioning

properly, and (3) when traveling in foreign waters, a vessel must receive an

Intentional Oil Prevention Form B Certificate, which is specifically designed for

oil tankers. 

However, if a vessel is to be used as a freight vessel, which includes any

vessel not an oil tanker, certification is different. A freight vessel must be

inspected and certified by the Coast Guard; however, a properly functioning ODM
§ 151.10 Control of oil discharges. 

1

(a) When more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land, any discharge of oil or oily mixtures

into the sea from a ship other than an oil tanker or from machinery space bilges of an oil tanker is

prohibited except when all of the following conditions are satisfied. 33 C.F.R. § 151.10(a)(2006).

12

is not required. Freight vessels are not allowed to utilize oil tanker devices for

discharging substances into the sea. In addition, a freight vessel would receive a

Form A IOPP, which is for vessels other then oil tankers. There are totally

different requirements when utilizing a ship as a freight vessel compared to an oil

tanker. With this in mind, we address the merits of the case.

Taking the issues raised in sequence, Stickle first contends that the

indictment should be dismissed because one of the regulatory provisions cited in

count II, 33 C.F.R. § 151.10(a), applicable to “a ship other than an oil tanker” did 1

not clearly apply to the S.S. Juneau. Stickle asserts that the S.S. Juneau was

originally constructed as an oil tanker and therefore can utilize 33 C.F.R. § 157.37

when discharging oil into the sea. This assertion fails for several reasons. First, it

is undisputed that the S.S. Juneau was certified, inspected and approved for use as

a freight vessel. According to the record, the United States Coast Guard inspected

and certified the S.S. Juneau as a freight vessel for a single trip to deliver wheat.

Sabine received a COI from the Coast Guard making it clear that the Juneau could

only operate as a freight vessel, not an oil tanker. In addition, in order for the
13

Juneau to travel in International waters, the vessel needed an IOPP certificate. As

mentioned earlier, there are two different types of IOPP certificates, Form A, for

ships other than oil tankers, and Form B for oil tankers. The S.S. Juneau received a

Form A certificate. During a Form A inspection there is no inspection of an ODM

because the vessel is not being certified as an oil tanker. If Stickle wanted to use

the Juneau as an oil tanker, the vessel was required to go through the process of

inspections and certifications that control the operations of a vessel as an oil

tanker, which includes a Form B certificate. A Form B certificate is only granted

after passing an inspection of a properly working oil discharging monitoring

system. In addition, regardless of whether a vessel is designed as a freight vessel

or as an oil tanker, it is clear that a ship cannot discharge any oily mixture or

residue into the sea without the use of a properly certified monitoring device. It is

clear from the testimony of several crew members that the S.S. Juneau did not use

any monitoring device when dumping 440 metric tons of contaminated grain into

the South China Sea. The government properly charged Stickle with violating 33

C.F.R. § 151.10(a) because the S.S. Juneau was being operated as a freight vessel

and discharged over 440 metric tons of contaminated wheat into the South China

Sea without the use of a properly certified monitoring device.

Next, Stickle contends that his convictions on counts I and II must be
 This court adopted the former Fifth Circuit’s case law handed down as of September 30, 2

1981. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

14

reversed because the district court violated his due process rights when it

instructed the jury that the government need only prove venue by a preponderance

of the evidence. This argument lacks merit. It has long been settled that when the

government is proving a non-essential element of a crime, like venue, the

prosecution is not required to meet the reasonable doubt standard. See United

States v. White, 611 F.2d 531, 534 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting United States v.

Turner, 586 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1978). Our precedent is well established and 2

clear as illustrated by this quote from a recent opinion:

The standard this court applies when venue is challenged is whether,

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government

and making all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor

of the jury verdict . . . the Government proved by a preponderance of

the evidence that the crimes occurred in the district in the which the

defendant was prosecuted.

See United States v. Breitweiser, 357 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2004). That

burden was properly described to the jury.

Third, Stickle argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish venue

in the Southern District of Florida for the conspiracy count of the indictment. He

contends that all of the overt acts of this conspiracy occurred on the high seas
However, despite the fact the charges could have been brought in Iowa, they were

3

properly filed in the Southern District of Florida since there was no existing case in Iowa. See

United States v. Williams, 589 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1979).

15

and/or in Cedar Rapids Iowa. Although Stickle is correct that most of the overt 3

acts occurred on the high seas and in Iowa, it is also true that a false statement was

made by one of the co-conspirators in West Palm Beach. This false statement was

a deliberate attempt to hinder the criminal investigation and clearly made in

furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy. In April 1999, the FBI interviewed

Philip Hitchens, the Juneau’s Chief Officer. In this interview, Hitchens lied to the

FBI agents by stating that there “were only traces” of oil in the contaminated

grain. Hitchens made this false statement in order to minimize the extent of

contamination of the grain which was discharged from the Juneau. Based on the

totality of the evidence, the jury reasonably concluded that the false statement

made by Hitchens impeded the investigation into whether the Juneau’s and

Sabine’s operations had violated the law. Sufficient evidence was presented that

an overt act occurred in the Southern District of Florida.

Finally, Stickle asserts that venue did not exist under 18 U.S.C. § 3238 in

the Southern District of Florida for count II, the illegal discharge of contaminated

grain. The indictment charged Stickle with knowingly discharging and causing to

be discharged from a ship more than 400 gross tons of oil and oil mixture of
16

diesel-contaminated wheat and diesel fuel, into the sea without the use of an oil

discharge monitoring and control system. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3238, Congress

has provided that venue lies:

[I]n the district in which the offender, or any one of two or more joint

offenders, is arrested or is first brought; but if such offender or

offenders are not so arrested or brought into any district, an

indictment or information may be filed in the district of the last

known residence of the offender or any one of two or more joint

offenders.

18 U.S.C. § 3238 (2006). The locus delicti, or the place where an offense was

committed, “must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the

location of the act or acts constituting it.” See United States v. Cabrales, 524 1, 6-7

(1998)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, it is evident that the

locus delicti of count II is the high seas. The evidence presented at trial clearly

established that the laborers of the S.S. Juneau illegally discharged more than 440

metric tons of contaminated grain in to the South China Sea. Since no offender

was arrested or brought into any other district, this court looks to the last known

residence of any offender. Here, the last known residence of one of the joint

offenders was Hitchens, who lived in the Southern District of Florida. The jury

was justified in finding that the government established venue in the Southern

District of Florida for count II.
17

V. Conclusion

There is simply no merit in the contentions made in this appeal. The

government properly charged Stickle with violating 33 C.F.R. § 151.10(a),

because the S.S. Juneau was certified as a freight vessel and laborers of the vessel

illegally discharged more than 440 metric tons of contaminated grain into the sea.

This was done at the direction of Stickle. Next, when proving a non-essential

element of a crime, like venue, the government need only meet the preponderance

of evidence standard. Third, venue is appropriate in the Southern District of

Florida because a co-conspirator made a false statement in that district which was

determined by the jury to hinder the criminal investigation. Finally, the jury was

justified in finding that the government established venue in the Southern District

of Florida for count II, because under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3238, the

criminal activity occurred on the high seas and the last known residence of

Hitchens, a co-conspirator, was in the Southern District of Florida. 

AFFIRMED.