FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UL 06 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1207 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-20072 -CR- AS G UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RICK DEAN STICKLE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 6, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , F A Y and S IL E R* , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. FA Y, Circuit Judge:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ *Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting by desig nation.2

T his c as e inv olv es the de lib er at e pol lut ionof int er na tio na l w at er s and w he the r thi s de fe ndant w as pr ope rl y c harg ed and tri ed in thi s di str ic t c ourt. App el la nt ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r on e co un t o f co ns pi rin g t o v io la te th e la ws of the U nit ed

S ta te s and o ne c ount

of kno w ing ly

dis ch ar gin g an oi ly

m ixt ur e int o the se a w ith out

an oi l di sc harg e m oni tor ing sy ste m . Ri ck D ean S tic kle w as the Ch ai rm anand O w ne r of

S ab ine T ranspo rt at ionCo m pany , w hic h m an ag ed

and ope rate d oc eangoi ng v es se ls e nga ge d intr an spor tin g vari ous carg oe s. Whil e cr oss ing the S outh C hin a Se a on a r et ur n vo y ag e to the U nit ed

S ta te s, la bor er s of the S . S. Jun ea

u di sc harg ed

c ont am inate d w he at

and d ie se l f

ue l i nto the se a w ith out t h e u s e o f an o i l mo n i t o r i n g an dd i s c h a r g e c o n tr o l s ys t e m. S t i c k l e wa s tr i e db y a j ur y w hic h a dj udi cate d hi m

gui lty on b othc ount s. H e co nte nds that the ind ic tm en t shou ld have been dism issed because the Juneau was not a fr eight vessel as defined in the c harg ed

statut es . H e furthe r as se rt s th at the gov er

nm en t w as r equir ed

to prove venue bey ond a reasonable doub t and that the evidence presented at trial w as ins uf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh v enue in the S outhe rnD istri ct of F lor ida . F ind ing no me r i ti n th e s e c o n t e n t i o n s , w e a f f i rm. I. F ac tua l B ac kgr ound Sa bin e T ranspo rt at ionCo m pany ( “ Sa bin e” ) ow ne d, m an ag ed

and o pe rate d a fleet of older tank ship s used to transp ort cargo. Sabine is one of several3

co rp or at ion s he ad quart er ed in Ce dar Ra

pid s, I ow a, c oll ec tiv el y

kno w n a s S tic kle E nte rp ri se s. Ri ck

D ean S tic kle w as the O w ne r an d C ha irm anof S tic kle Enter prises. Stickle w as an intensely hands-on m anager who regularly invol ved him se lf in the bus ine ss’ da ily

ope ratio ns and d ec isi on m ak ing . S tic kle and the ope ratio n m an ag er s w er e in c onst an t c om m uni catio n w iththe ir

ve sse ls e ith er

by fa x, e m ai l or

te le phon e. I n a ddi tio n, S tic kle m et w ithope ratio n m an ag er s ona da il y ba si s t o d is cu ss th e d ai ly repo rts fro m ve ss el s at sea . In199 8, S ab ine pur ch as ed the S . S. Jun ea

u, an a gin g, sin gle -hull ed ve sse l, o r i g i n a l l y b u i l ta s an o i l t a n k e r . Th e J u n e auwa s i mm e d i a t e l y d e s i g n a t e dt o c a rry a carg o of w he at f or CA RE and W or ld F ood Pr ogr am s f ro m P ortland, O re gon to Bangl ad es h. S ab ine pur ch as ed the Jun ea

u w iththe int en tio n of

m ak ing asin gle tr ip t o tr an spor

t w he at abr oa d. I n or de r to a cc om pli sh this tr ip, S ab ine ha d th e Coast Guar d certify

the Juneau to carry

wheat (as opposed to oil), that is, certify the Jun ea u a s af re igh t ve sse l, r athe r than an oi l t an ke r. T he U nit ed S ta te s C oa st Guar d condu cted an inspection andissued a Certificate of Inspection (“ COI ”) m aking it lawful for the Juneau to operate as a fre ight v essel for this singl e trip. In ad dit ionto a CO I, U nit ed S ta te s V es se ls tha t trave l ov er se as m ust c om ply w ith int er na tio na l r equir em en ts. T he Jun ea u ne ed ed an I nte rn at ion al O il Po llu tio n Prev en ti on Cert ifi cat e (“ IOPP”) . There are t wo t y pe s o f IOPP ce rti fic at es : Fo rm A,4

fo r shi ps o the r than oi l t an ke rs , and F orm B, f or oil tanke rs . Be ca

use S ab ine elected to operate the Juneau as a fre ight v essel, the C oast Guard issued it a Form A. On O ctober 27, 1998, under the control of Captain Stuart V alentine, the S .S . June austart ed

it s vo y ag e fr om

P ortland, O re gon to B an gla de sh. Co nsi ste nt w ith the CO I, the Jun ea

u’ s c ar go c onsi ste d of

113 , 000 m etri c ton s of

w he at . E n r out e to Bangl ad es h, the Jun ea

u st oppe d inS ing ap or e to l oa d di es el f ue l. T his f

ue l w as to be use d to r

un s ev er al e va cu at or s w hic h w oul d be use d to of fl oa d th e shi p’ s c ar go. Whe n th e June auarr ive d inBangl ad es h inD ec em be r, 199 8, c re wm em

be rs dis co ve re d th at

die se l f ue l ha d le ak ed

int o th e carg o de ck

and c ont am inate d th e gr ai n. Appr oxi m at el y

900 0 ga llo ns o f die se l f

ue l l eake d f

ro m the starb oard

slo p tank i nto the bottom

of the c ar go t an k, sa tur at ing about 440 m etri c ton s of

the w he at c ar go. D el ive ry

of the c ont am inate d w he at

w as r ef use d by Bangl ad es hi pur ch as er s. A t this poi nt i n ti m e, the ope rator s of the S . S. Jun ea

u ha d to de ci de what to do with the w orthless, contam inated cargo. Bangladesh regulation s require co ntam inate d po rt ion s of f ood carg oe s to be dis ch ar ge d and d es tr oy ed w hil e the ve sse l i s st ill in port. T his r equir em en t w as e sta bli she d be ca

use too m an y

ve sse ls w er e dis posi ng o f the ir

w as te in Bangl ad es hi w at er s. T he ope rator s of the Jun ea

u, co nc er ne d w iththe e xpe nse and d el ay in dis posi ng o f the c ont am inate d c ar go5

ashore, dec ided to leave Bangladesh with the contam inated portion of the w heat sti ll in the c ar go t an k. Re al iz ing that the f

ue l ha d be enabsor

be d in to the w he at , m ak ing it im poss ible for cr ewm em

bers to drain the cargo tank and save the grain, the c rew co nta ct ed he ad quart er s inI ow a. Ca pta in V al en tin e re ve al ed

the pr obl em

and advoc at ed

dis ch ar gin g th e co ntam inate d w he at dir ec tly ove rb oard

e n r out e to Singapore. S abine m anagers discussed thi s optio n directly with Stickle; howe ver the S . S. Jun ea

u w as una

ble to se cure the r equir ed la bor er s inBangl ad es h to r ide wit h t he sh ip an d a ss is t i n t he pl an ne d i ll eg al du m pi ng . As the Juneau wa s sailing towar d Singapore, Sa bine headquarters instructed Po rt E ngi ne er , Mi ch ae l K

ri de r, to start

ne got ia tio ns and try

to sol ic it a bid

f or onsh or e dis posa l of

the c ont am inate d gr ai n. S tic kle spo ke w ithK ri de r an d to ld him to report all inform ation of prosp ective bids directly to him . T he first initial bid w as in the a m ount

of $13 9, 000. K

ri de r inf orm ed S tic kle of

thi s pr ic e. S tr ic kle re spon de d by

say ing that the bid

w as too hig h and tha t the oil -c ont am inate d gr ai n w oul d be dis pose d of

a t se a. T hr ough out

the ne xt m onth S tic kle , Mi ch ae l R ee ve (“ Reeve” ), and John Karay annides (“ Karay annides”), a ll directors of Sabine, dis cu sse d othe r dis posa l op tio ns. O ne opt iondis cu sse d w as an a tte m pt t o intro duc e w at er

in the c ar go d ec k and c re at e a “ slurr y ” out of the w at er and6

co ntam inate d w he at . H ow ev er it w as de te rm ine d th at

thi s op tio n w as not

f ea sib le because the oil discharge m onito ring device (“ OD M”) w as not operational and h ad not been ins pected by

the Coast Guar d. D uring Janu ary , 1998, K rider inform ed Stickle of severa l other bids for off-shore and on-shore dispo sal. E ach tim e, Stickle responded by

say ing th at the bids were too hig h and that “ they could stick the bid . ” F ina lly , a ft er

de ci din g th at

any le ga l di spos al of

the c ont am inate d gr ai n w oul d be too c ost ly , a t the ins tr uc tio n of S tic kle , K ar ay an nid es m ad e ar range m en ts fo r 15 B ulg ar ian la

bor er s to j ointhe shi p inS ing ap or e an d a ssi st i n di spos ing of the contam inated grain illegally into th e sea. Sh ortly the re af te r, K ri de r an d K ar ay an nid es start ed c re at ing af

al se explana tio n f

or the dis posa l of

the c ont am inate d gr ai n. O n January 25, 199 8, K ar ay an nid es c al le d th e Se attle Co as t G uard and s poke w ithL ie ute nant J an e W ong (“ W ong” ). K ar ay an nid es e xpl ai ne d th at the f ue l ha d so m eh owbr ea ch ed the ve sse ls f ue l t an k and l eake d in to the c ar go t an k. H e the n sa id tha t he w as tr y ing to figure out how to rem ove the final “ oil residues.” A t no tim e did Kar ay annides ever discuss the real problem , which was the 440 m etric tons of contam inated gr ai n. K ar ay an nid es inquir ed about the use of

an O D M unde r 33 C . F. R. § 15 7. 37, the r eg ulatio n th at

appl ie s to dis ch ar ge s f

ro m oil tanke rs . W ong re spon de d by say ing that the Jun ea

u w as c er tif ie d a s af re igh t ve sse l and w as not ins pe ct ed

a s a7

oil tanker. W ong th en explained all the additio nal steps that needed to b e taken be fo re the Jun ea

u c oul d be uti liz ed

a s an oi l t an ke r unde r the r eg ulatio ns. W ong furthe r state d th at

the Jun ea

u di d no t have aF orm

B IO PP c er

tif ic at e be ca use it w as li ste d and i nspe ct ed

a s af re igh t ve sse l. A ft er

dis cu ssi ng this inf

orm at ionw ith W ong, K ar ay an nid es se nt W ong a le tte r that c onf irm ed the ir c onve rs at ion . W ong, be lie vin g th at

K ar ay an nid es ’ le tte r did

not a cc ur at el y

portr ay the ir c onve rs at ion , se nt a r et ur n le tte r to K ar ay an nid es . I n he r le tte r, W ong m ad e cl ear that be fo re the S. S. Jun ea

u c oul d “ re tur

n . . . to ope ratio n a s atank v es se l” and d isc harg e an y re sid ue pur suant t o 33 C. F. R. § 15 7. 37, it “ m ust obt ai n ane wCO I au tho ri zi ng service as a

tank vessel” and “ m

ust ob tain a Form

B supplem ent for the IO PP. ” It i s u n d i s p u t e dth a tth e S . S . J u n e aun e v e r o b t a i n e dan e wC O I o r

F o rm B supp lem ent for the IO PP. O n January

30, 199 8, be fo re the Jun ea u w as to co m

m en ce the dis ch ar ge of the c ont am inate d w he at

and f ue l i nto the S outh C hin a Se a, the Jun ea u a cquir ed

a ne wCa pta in, G eo rg e Mc K ay

( “ Mc K ay ”) . Whe n M cK ay board ed the shi p he soo n re al iz ed that the ve sse l c ar

ri ed ton s of c ont am inate d gr ai n. A ft er Mc K ay spo ke w ithP hil ip H itc he ns ( the Jun ea u’ s C hie f O ff

ic er ) he le ar

ne d of the plan to dis pose of the c ont am inate d w he at

int o th e se a. T he ne xt d ay the Jun ea

u se t sa il fr om Si nga por e enr out e to P ortland. F or the ne xt 6 day s la

bor er s us ed

e va cu at or s to8

suck up th e contam inated grain from the car go tank anddischarge it overboard int o th e So uthCh ina

S ea . Whe n th e gr ai n w as too de nse to fi t thr oughthe ev ac ua tor s th e la

bor er s ha ule d th e co ntam inate d gr ai n up to the de ck usi ng a m anua l bu ck et

and p ull ey

sy ste m . I n da ily

c or re spon de nc es w ithhe ad quart er s in Iowa , Mc Kay

discussed th e progress of the illegal dum ping . I t is und isput ed that the Jun ea u di d no t ut ili ze ac er

tif ie d O D M whe n di sc harg ing thi s gr ai n in to the sea. Af ter all of the c ontam inated grain was dum ped overboard, the cargo tank was flu sh edan d d is ch arg edin to th e o cean . The Juneau ar

rived in Portland on March 5, 1999. Shortly thereaf ter, H itc he ns and o the r cr ewm em be rs le ar ne d th at the Co as t G uard

w as c om ing to inspect the vessel. Over

the next couple of m onth s the Coast Guard interview ed June auc re wm em

be rs . Mc K ay , H itc he ns and o the r cr ewm em be rs sou ght

to m inim ize the ef

fect of the contam ination by falsely stating th at the grain w as contam inated by

sea w ater r ather than diesel fuel. Based upon these ini tial int er vie w s, the Co as t G uard

ope ne d ac ri m ina l i nve sti ga tio n. I n Apr il 1999 , the Federa l Bureau of I nvestig ation(“ FBI” ) j oined th e investigatio n. T he FBI interviewed H itchens in W est Palm Beac h, w hich is located in th e Southern D istri ct of F lor ida . D ur ing that i nte rv ie w , H itc he ns l ie d to the F BI a ge nts by statin g th at

the re “ w er e onl y

tr ac es ” of

oil in the c ont am inate d gr ai n. H itc he ns9

soug ht to m inim ize the extent of the contam ination of the grain w hich was di sc ha rg edfro m

th e Ju ne au an d t o c ov erup t he de li be rat e u nl awfu l p ol lu ti on . Im m ed ia te ly f oll ow ing the int er

vie w , H itc he ns c al le d S ab ine he ad quart er s to rep or t t he di sc us si on . Ultim ately , on May

27, 1999, Sabine sent a letter to the Coast Guard respondin g to the crim inal investi gation. The le tter stated, “ If the e nvironm ental statutes were in fact violated, the violation occurred w ithou t the knowledge, au tho ri zatio n, or

c onse nt o f the sho re ba se d m an ag em en t of the c om pany . ” T his letter w as sent even thoug h Sabine m anagem ent knew the statem ent was f alse.

II. Issues St ic kle r ai se s f

our iss ue s: 1. Whe the r the ind ic tm en t pr ope rl y c harg ed him w ithvio la tin g 33 C.F .R. § 151.10(a), by

knowinglydischarging d iesel-contam inated w he at and f ue l f ro m the Jun ea

u, af re igh t ve sse l, int o th e So uthCh ina Sea without any

discharging m onito ring prevention device. 2. D oe s th e gove rn m en t ne ed to pr ove ve nue by

apr ep onde ranc e of

the ev ide nc e or

be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt? 3. W as the evidence that a co-c onsp irator m ade a f alse statem ent to an10 FB I ag en t su ff

ic ie nt t o e sta

bli sh v enue in the S outhe rnD istri ct of Fl or ida f or c ount I of the ind ic tm en t? 4. Whe the r the gov er nm en t e sta

bli she d ve nue und er

18 U . S. C. § 32 38 fo r co unt I I of the ind ic tm en t i n th e So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida , the dis tr ic t of the la st k now n r es ide nc e of

one of the j oin t of

fe nde rs , w he re the of

fe nse w as c om

m itt ed upo n th e hig h se as .

III . S tandard of Review T his c ourt r ev ie w s th e de nia l of am oti on f

or aj udgm en t of

a cquitta l a s w el l as the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort a j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t de novo . S ee U nited St at es v. P ist one , 177 F . 3d 9 57, 958 ( 11th Ci r. 199 9) . Whe n ve nue is ch al le nge d, thi s c ourt vi ew s th e ev ide nc e in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t and m ak es a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s and c re dib ili ty

c hoi ce s inf

av or of the j ur y ve rd ic t. United States v. Bre itweiser , 357 F. 3d 12 49, 1253 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). Adistrict co urt’ s de nia l of

am oti on f

or im pr ope r ve nue is a que sti on o f lawand s ubj ec t t o de novo review . S ee U nited States v. Muench, 153 F.3d 1298 , 1300 (11th Cir. 1998 ). IV . A na ly sis11

Be fo re w e ad dr es s th e m er its of thi s a ppe al , w e tur

n our atte nti on t o th e dif fe re nc e be tw ee n th e re gul at or y pr ovi sio ns tha t a ddr es s f re igh t ve sse ls and those co ntr oll ing oil tanke rs . A cc or din g to F ed er al Re gul at ion s, the U nit ed S ta te s C oa st G uard ha s se ve ra l pr ovi sio ns whic h de al w ithnavig at ionand n av iga ble w at er s. Mos t of the se pr ovi sio ns w er e cr eate d to pr ote ct the oc ean e nvi ro nm en t f ro m oil tanke rs that w er e dis ch ar gin g c onsi de ra ble a m ount s of

oil int o th e se a w ith out

the use of adis ch ar gin g m oni tor ing sy ste m . U nde rs tandi ng tha t oi l t an ke rs tr av el f or m onth s across the ocean w ith a signi ficant am ount of oil, the Coast Guard cre ated re gul at ion s w hic h a llo w ed c er ta in am ount s of

oil to be le ga lly

dis ch ar ge d in to the sea through an oil discharging m onito ring sy stem . T his device is term ed an OD M. In order to utilized these provisio ns, a vessel m ust com ply with severa l re qui re m en ts: ( 1) ave sse l m ust be c er tif ie d by the Co as t G uard

a s aoil tanke r, ( 2) the Co as t G uard

m ust ins pe ct the ve sse ls O D M t o se e if the de vic e is f

unc tio nin g properly , and (3) when traveling in foreign waters, a vessel m ust receive an In te nti ona l O il Pr ev en tio n F orm B Ce rt if ic at e, w hic h is spe ci fi ca lly de sig ne d f

or oi l t an ke rs . H ow ev er , if

ave sse l i s to be use d a s af re igh t ve sse l, w hic h in cl ude s any ve sse l no t an oi l t an ke r, c er tif ic at ionis dif

fe re nt. Af

re igh t ve sse l m

ust be in sp ect edan d c ert ifi edby the Co as t Gu ard ; h owe ve r, a p ro pe rly fun ct io ni ng ODM§ 151.10 Control of oil discharg es. 1 (a) When more than 12 na utical miles from the ne are st land, any discharg e of oil or oily

mix tures int o th e se a

fr om a sh ip o the r t

ha n a n o il t ank e r o r f

ro m ma c hin e ry

sp a c e bil g e s o f a

n o il t ank e r i s prohibited except when a ll of the followingconditions are satisfied. 33 C.F.R. § 151.10(a) (2006). 12 is n ot r equir ed . F re igh t ve sse ls are not a llo w ed to uti liz e oil tanke r de vic es f or discharging subst ances into the sea. I n additio n, a freight vessel would rece ive a Fo rm AI O PP , w hic h is f

or ve sse ls o the r the n oi l t an ke rs . T he re are tot al ly dif fe re nt r equir em en ts whe n ut ili zi ng a shi p a s af

re igh t ve sse l c om

pare d to an oi l tanker. W ith this in m ind, we address the m erits of the ca se. T ak ing the iss ue s r ai se d inse que nc e, S tic kle f ir st c ont en ds tha t the ind ic tm en t sh oul d be dis m iss ed be ca use one of

the r eg ulator

y pr ovi sio ns c ite d in co unt I I, 33 C . F. R. § 15 1. 10( a) , appl ic ab le to “ a shi p othe r than an oi l t an ke r” did 1 not clearly

apply to the S.S . Juneau. Stickle asserts that the S. S. Juneau was or igi na lly c onstru ct ed

a s an oi l t an ke r an d th er ef or e can ut ili ze 33 C . F. R. § 15 7. 37 w he n di sc harg ing oil int o th e se a. T his a sse rt ionf ai ls f or se ve ra l r ea sons . F ir st, it is und isput ed that the S. S. Juneau was ce rtified, inspected and approv ed for use as a fr eight vessel. Ac cording to th e re cord, the United States Coast Guar d insp ected an d c er tif ie d th e S. S. Jun ea

u a s af re igh t ve sse l f

or asin gle tr ip t o de liv er

w he at . Sa bin e re ce ive d aCO I fr om the Co as t G uard

m ak ing it

c le ar that the Jun ea

u c oul d onl y ope rate a s af

re igh t ve sse l, not

an oi l t an ke r. I n a ddi tio n, in or de r fo r the13

Ju ne au to tra ve l i n In te rn at io na l wat ers , th e v es se l n eed edan IOPP ce rti fic at e. As m en tio ne d e ar lie r, the re are tw o di ff er en t ty pe s of I O PP c er tif ic at es , F orm

A , f or shi ps o the r than oi l t an ke rs , and F orm B fo r oil tanke rs . T he S . S. Jun ea u r ec ei ve d a Fo rm A cert ifi cat e. Dur in g a Fo rm A in sp ect io n t he re i s n o i ns pe ct io n o f an ODM be ca use the ve sse l i s no t be ing c er tif ie d a s an oi l t an ke r. I f St ic kle w an te d to use the Jun ea u a s an oi l t an ke r, the ve sse l w as r equir ed to go thr oughthe pr oc es s of ins pe ct ion s and c er

tif ic at ion s th at

c ontro l the ope ratio ns o f a ve sse l a s an oi l tanker, which includes a Form B ce rtificate. A Form

B ce rtificate is onlygranted af te r pa ssi ng an in spe ct ionof apr ope rl y

w orkin g oi l di sc harg ing m oni tor ing sy stem . I n additio n, re gardless of whether a vessel is designed as a freight vessel or a s an oi l t an ke r, it

is cl ear that a

shi p c an not

dis ch ar ge any

oil y m ixt ur e or re sid ue int o th e se a w ith out

the use of

apr ope rl y

c er tif ie d m oni tor ing de vic e. I t i s cl ear fr om

the te sti m ony

of se ve ra l c re wm em

be rs that the S . S. Jun ea

u di d no t us e an y m oni tor ing de vic e w he n du m pin g 44 0 m etri c ton s of

c ont am inate d gr ai n in to the S outh C hin a Se a. T he gov er nm en t pr ope rl y

c harg ed S tic kle w ithvio la tin g 33 C.F .R. § 151.10(a) because the S .S . Juneau w as being op erate d as a fr eight vessel an d di sc harg ed

ove r 440 m etri c ton s of

c ont am inate d w he at

int o th e So uthCh ina Sea without the use of a properly certified m onito ring device. N ex t, S tic kle c ont en ds tha t hi s c onvi ct ion s onc ount s I and I I m ust beThis court adopte d the forme r F ifth Circuit’s case law hande d down as of Septe mber 30, 2 1981. See B onner v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc). 14 re ve rs ed be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts whe n it instructed the jury

that the governm ent need only prove venue by

a preponderance of the e vid en ce . T his arg um en t l ac ks m er it. I t ha s lo ng b ee n se ttl ed that w he n th e gove rn m en t i s pr ovi ng a

non -e sse nti al e le m en t of ac ri m e, li ke ve nue , the prosecution is not required to m eet the re asonable dou bt standard. See United St at es v. Whit e, 611 F . 2d 5 31, 534 ( 5thCi r. 198 0) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. T ur ne r, 586 F . 2d 3 95, 397 ( 5thCi r. 197 8) . O ur pr ec ed en t i s w el l e sta

bli she d and 2 cl ear as il lus tr at ed

by thi s qu ote f

ro m ar ec en t op ini on: The standard this court applies when venue is challenged is whether, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t an d m ak ing a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s and c re dib ili ty

c hoi ce s inf

av or of the j ur y ve rd ic t . . . the G ove rn m en t pr ove d by apr ep onde ranc e of the e vid en ce that the c ri m es oc curr ed in the dis tr ic t i n th e w hic h th e de fe ndant w as pr ose cu te d. See United States v. Bre itweiser , 357 F. 3d 12 49, 1253 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). That b u r d e n wa s p r o p e r l y d e s c r i b e dt o th e ju ry. T hir d, S tic kle arg ue s th at the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to es ta

bli sh v enue in th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a fo r th e co ns pi racy cou nt of t he in di ct m en t. He contends that all of the overt acts of this conspiracy occurre d on th e high seasHoweve r, despite the f act the c harg es could have bee n broug ht in I owa, they wer e 3 proper ly filed in the Southern District of F lorida since the re w as no existi ngcase in I owa. See United States v. Wil liams, 589 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1979). 15 and/or in Cedar Rapids Iowa . Although Stickle is correct that m ost of the overt 3 acts occurre d on th e high seas and in Iowa, it is also true that a false statem ent was m ade by one of the co-conspirators in W est Palm Beac h. T his false statem ent was a de lib er at e atte m

pt t o hi nde r the c ri m ina l i nve sti ga tio n and c le ar ly m ad e in furtherance of the obje ctives of the conspiracy . I n April 1999, the FBI interviewe d Ph ili p H itc he ns, the Jun ea u’ s C hie f O ff

ic er . I n th is i nte rv ie w , H itc he ns l ie d to the FBI agents by

stating th at there “ we re only trace s” of oil in the contam inated gr ai n. H itc he ns m ad e thi s f al se state m en t i n or de r to m ini m iz e the e xte nt o f co ntam inatio n of

the gr ai n w hic h w as dis ch ar ge d f ro m the Jun ea

u. Ba se d onthe tot al ity of the e vid en ce , the j ur

y r ea sona bly c onc lud ed

that the f al se state m en t m ad e by H itc he ns i m

pe de d th e inv es tig at ionint o w he the r the Jun ea u’ s and Sabine’ s operations h ad violated the law. Suffic ient evidence wa s presented that an overt act occur

red in the Southern District of F lorida. Fi na lly , S tic kle a sse rt s th at ve nue did

not e xis t un de r 18 U . S. C. § 32 38 i n the Southern District of F lorida for count II, the illegal discharge of contam inated gr ai n. T he ind ic tm en t c harg ed S tic kle w ithkno w ing ly

dis ch ar gin g and c au sin g to be dis ch ar ge d f

ro m ashi p m or e than 40 0 gr oss ton s of oil and o il m ixt

ur e of16

die se l- co ntam inate d w he at and d ie se l f

ue l, int o th e se a w ith out

the use of

an oi l dis ch ar ge m oni tor ing and c ontro l sy ste m . P ur suant t o 18 U . S. C. § 32 38, Co ngr es s ha s pr ovi de d th at

ve nue li es : [I ] n th e dis tr ic t i n w hic h th e of fe nde r, or any one of tw o or m or e j oin t of fe nde rs , is ar

re ste d or is fi rs t br ough t; but

if suc h of fe nde r or offenders ar e not so arrested or brought int o any district, an ind ic tm en t or

inf orm at ionm ay

be f ile d inthe dis tr ic t of

the la st known r es ide nc e of

the of fe nde r or any one of tw o or m or e j oin t of fe nde rs . 18 U. S. C. § 323 8 (2006). T he loc us d el ic ti , or the place w here an offense w as co m m itt ed , “ m

ust be de te rm ine d f

ro m the na tur e of

the c ri m e al le ge d and the location of the act or acts constitutin g it.” S ee U nited States v. Ca brales, 524 1 , 6-7 (1 998) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). H er e, it is ev ide nt tha t the loc us d el ic ti of c ount I I is the hig h se as . T he e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al c le ar ly es ta bli she d th at

the la bor er s of the S . S. Jun ea

u il le ga lly

dis ch ar ge d m or e than 44 0 m etric tons of contam inated grain in to th e South China Sea. Since no offender was arre st edor b ro ug ht in to an y ot he r di st ric t, t hi s co ur t l oo ks to th e la st kn own re sid en ce of

any of fe nde r. H er e, the la st k

now n r es ide nc e of

one of the j oin t offenders w as Hitchens, who lived in the South ern D istrict of Florida. The j ury wa s justified in finding th at the governm ent established v enue in the Southern District of F lorida for count II.17 V . Co nc lus ion T he re is sim

ply no m er it in the c ont en tio ns m ad e in this appe al . T he governm ent properly

charged Stickle w ith vio lating 33 C. F. R. § 151 .10(a) , because the S. S. Juneau was ce rtified as a freight vessel and laborers of the vessel illegally discharged m ore than 440 m etric tons of contam inated grain into the sea. This w as done at the direction of Stickle. Ne xt, w hen provin g a non-essential elem ent of a cr im e, like venue, the governm ent need only m eet the preponderance of e vid en ce standard . T hir d, ve nue is ap pr opr ia te in the S outhe rnD istri ct of Florida because a co-conspirator m ade a f alse statem ent in that dis trict w hich was determ ined by

the j ury to hind er the c rim inal investi gation. Finally , the j ury wa s j ustified in find ing th at the governm ent established v enue in the Southern District of F lor ida f or c ount I I, be ca use und er the pr ovi sio ns o f 18 U . S. C. § 32 38, the cr im ina l a ct ivi ty

oc curr ed

on t he hig h se as and the la st k now n r es ide nc e of Hit ch en s, a c o- co ns pi rat or , was i n t he So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a. AFFIR MED.