The court has decided t o pu blis h it s order, i n edite d form , as 1 an opi ni on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 07

- 3874 & 07

- 3875 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ERR I K H AGE R MAN an d W ABA SH E NVIR ONM ENTAL T ECHNOLO GIES, LLC , D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:06C R0139

—David F. H amil ton, Chief Judge.
S UBMIT TED N OVE MBE R 13, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 5, 2008

O P I NI ON J AN UA RY 15, 2009 1

B efore P OSNER, R O V NE R an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . A j ury convi cted W abas h Envir onm ental Te ch no l o g i es ( W ET) an d i ts pr es i den t, De r r i kHag er m an,2 N os. 07

- 3874& 07

- 3875

on te n co u n ts of m ak in g m a t er ially fals e s ta te m en ts in re port s that W ET w as re quir ed to fi l e und er th e C lean W ater A ct, 33 U .S .C

. § 1319(c)(4). The j ud ge sente nced H age rm an to 60 m onths i n pri son ( a guidel i ne se ntence, w ell ex p lain ed by th e jud ge , U ni t e d St at e s v. Hage r m an , 52 5 F
. S upp. 2 d 1 058 ( S

. D. I nd. 2 00 7) ) , a nd, a l o ngwi thW ET, was o r der ed to pa y $ 23 7, 68 0 i n r es ti tu ti o n t o the EPA f o r th e e x p e n s e o fc l e a n i n gu p p o l l u t i o n c a u s e d b y th e m. W ET o perat ed a f aci l i ty i n Terr e Haute, I nd i ana, that tr eat ed i nd ustr i all i quid w ast e and di schar ged the t re ate d l i qui d i nt o the W aba shRi ve r . The Nat i o na l Po l l ut an t Di sc ha r g e El i m i na ti o n S y st em per m i t issued b y the I ndi an a Depa r tmento fEnv i r o nm en ta l M an ag ement l i m i ted the ty pe and am ount o fpol l u ta n ts t hat the waste liqu id co u ld co n ta in an d req u ir e d W E T to m ak e m on th ly re port s

— M o nthl y M o ni to r i ngRe po r ts ( M M R s) a nd Disc harg e M oni tor i ng Repor ts ( DM Rs)

— di sc l o singthe re sul ts ofte sts o f t he waste l i quid. The per m i t r equi re d th atW ET us e te st i ngpr o ce dur es a ppr o ve d b y the EPA and m ade Hag er m anr es po ns ibl e f o r c o m pl et i ngthe re port s a nd cer ti fyi ng tha t they were “t rue, acc urat e an d co m p let e.” H agerm an and W ET ar gue that the di str i ct c ourter re d in ad m itt in g in to ev id en c e c o p ies of ce rt ain ele c tr on ic sprea dsheets that re cor ded te st re sul ts that w er e not charg ed i n t h e in dict m ent b ut were i n confl i ct with w hat W ET h a d r e po r t e d. T he de f e nd a nt s a r g ue tha tthe t e st re sul ts ar e evi dence of pri or bad acts that sh ou ld h ave be ene xc l ude d unde r F ede r alRul e o f Evi den ce 4 04 ( b)

. The ar gum ent has no m er i t. W hen a defe nd ant com m its tw o cri m i nal act s s i m ult aneousl y but is charg ed onl y withN os. 07

- 3874& 07

- 3875 3

o ne , “ th e ev i den ce o fthe ‘ o th er ’ c r i m e [ ca nno t] b e di se nta ng l e d f r o m th e e v i d e n c e o f th e c h a r g e d c r i me , ” an d th e r e f o r e e v i de n c e ma t e r i a l t o p r o v e th e c h a r g e d c r i me “m ay un avoid ably reveal” othe r cri m inal acts th at are n ot ch ar ge d

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 5 2 2 F
. 3 d 7 3 1 , 73 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. That i s the si tuati on her e. H age rm an and W ET w er e char ged with m i sre prese nti ng re sul ts of t es ts co n d u c te d be tw een J anuaryand O c to b er 20 04. Thi s was the sam e per i od c o v e r e d b y the s pr e a ds he e t s i n qu e s t i o n. I t wo ul d hav e been i nfe asibl e to separ ate o ut thi s e vi dence so as to el i m i nate any hi nt th at the def endants had al so fals ified ot h er te st res u lts

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bass , 7 94 F. 2d 1305 , 13 12 ( 8th Ci r. 19 86)
. W hat Hager m an kne w wh en he co m ple ted t h e r epor ts w as the c entr alquesti on a t tr ial. H e d en ied h av in g re c eiv ed rep or ts of te st r e su lts in an y f o r m ato th ertha n po st
- i t no te s an d sc r aps o fpa pera nd tes ti fi ed that he had neve r see n the sprea dsheets orr ecei ved any tes t r esul ts showing unacceptabl e l eve l s o f pol l uti on. But the E P A f ound spreadsheet s i n hi s o ffi ce, an d th e s p re ad sh ee ts th at th e d efe n d an ts arg u e s h ou ld have been excl ud ed f ro m ev i dence w er e cr uc ial to est ablish in g t h at th os e fo u n d in H ag er m an ’s o ffice w er e in f act pri ntouts o fthe sprea dsheets cre ate d a nd m ai ntai ned to re cor d l ab re sul ts. I n showing that H age rm an poss ess ed th ese p rintou ts, th e pros e c u t ion un d ercu t H agerm an ’s d e f e n s e th a th e h a d n e v e r s e e n th e m. The de f en dan ts a r g ue fr i vo l o us l y tha t bya dm i tt i ng ev i den ce o fmis co nduc t no t ch ar g ed i n the i ndi ct m en t, the j u d ge allow ed th e in d ict m en t t o b e “ c on st ru c tiv ely4 N os. 07

- 3874& 07

- 3875 amende d. ” Tha t amoun ts t o s ayi ngtha t admi tt i nga ny “o th er cr im es ” e vid en c e p er m itt ed by R u le 4 04 ( b ) w ou ld re su lt in a c on st ru c tiv e a m en d m en t. O b vio u sly n ot
. U nited St at e s v. Ros ar i o- D i az , 20 2 F
. 3d 54, 70-71 (1s t C ir. 2000); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le i ch t nam , 948 F. 2d 370, 379 ( 7th C ir. 1991). The defe nd ants ar gue tha t the di str i ct j ud ge m i sst ate d th e l aw i n o ne o fi ts j ur y i ns tr uct i o ns . He ins tr uct ed th e j ury that W ET ’ s p er m i t requi re d H age rm an to cer ti fy that e a c h r e p o r th e s u b mi t t e d w a s “ t r ue , ac c u r a t e , a n d c o mp le t e ” an d w as p rep ared un d er his “d irection or sup ervi si on i n acco rdance w i th a sys tem desi gned to ass ure that qua l i fi ed per so nne l pr o per l y g athe r a nd e valua te the i nfo rm ati on s ubm i tte d.” S o f ar, so go od , but he further i ns tr uct ed th e j ur y tha t “ [ t] he phra se ‘pr o per l y ga th era nd ev al ua te the i nf o r m at i o n s ubmi tt ed’ mean s t hat th e i nfo rm ati on was ga ther ed and eval uated in a ccor dance wi ththe t er m s an d co ndi ti o ns ” o f W ET’ s per m i t, i nc l udi ng “the r equi r ementtha t th e an al yti ca l a nd s ampl i ng m etho ds used conf or m to the appli cabl e federa l r egul ati ons. ” The co urt drew this l anguage fro m W ET ’ s di scharg e per m it. Bu t the defendants ar gue that the pro

vi si o n o fthe I nd ia na Adm i ni st r at i ve Co de se tt i ngo utthe speci fi c l anguage thathol ders ofdi schar ge perm i ts m ust use i n ver i fyi ng the i r re port s doe s no t defi n e the phra se “pro perl y g atherand eva l uate the info rm ati on s ubm i tted. ” 3 27 I ND . A D M IN . C OD E 5- 2- 22 ( d)

. The y ar g ue th atthe j udg e sh o ul d ha ve l eft i t up to th e j ur y to de te r m i ne whethe r W ET ha d a s y st em in p lace to e ns ur e th atthe r e s ul t s we r e p r o pe r l y g a the r e d a nd e v a l ua t e d. T h e p er m i t s tat ed that W ET had to use ei therthe tes t m eth o d s ap p roved i n th e E PA regulations, w hich areN os. 07

- 3874& 07

- 3875 5 l i ste d i n the perm i t, or “diff er ent but equi val ent m etho ds” that had b een approve d b y the EPA and the Com m i ssi oner ofthe I nd i ana Depart m ent o fEnvi ro nm en talM anage men t
. T he j ud g e ’ s i ns t r uc t i o n tha t the te s t i ngme tho ds m u st “co nfo rm to appli cabl e federa l r egul ati ons” w as a co r r ec t i nt er pr et at i o n ofthe pe r m i t, a nd the mean i ngo fthe perm i t pr ese nted an i ssue ofl aw that the j ud ge w as en tit led to d et er m in e, ra th er th an lea ve to th e jur y. U nited State s v. Wei tzenhoff

, 35 F.3 d 12 75 , 128 8 (9 th C ir. 19 93 ); P iney Run Pr e s . As s’n v. County Com m ’ rs of Car r ol l County, M d. , 268 F. 3d 255, 26 9 ( 4th Ci r. 2 00 1). T he per m i t s tat es that the t est i ng m etho ds “shal l co nfo rm to the c u rrent ver si on of40 CF R, P a r t1 3 6 , ” a nd b o th the l i s t e d t e s t i ngme tho ds and the pro cedure f oro btai ni ng appro va l to use al ter nati ve me th o d s a r e d e s c r ib e d i n th e c i t e d P a r to fth e C F R. See 40 C. F. R. §§ 13 6. 3 ( l i sti ng the approv ed tes ti ng pro cedu r e s ) , 1 3 6. 4 (l a y i ngo utthe p r o c e du r e f o r g a i ninga pp roval ofan eq uivalen t testing m eth od ). Fi nal l y, H age rm an a rgues that he shoul d not hav e be en g i ve n a pr i so n s en te nc e. He s ay s that th e damag e he caused to the envi ro nm ent cou l d not be quanti fi ed, that i n hi s l i f e o ut si de W ET he made “c o ns i der ab l e” c o nt r ibutio n s t o h is c om m u n ity , th at h is fa m ily re lies on h im f o r su ppo r t, an d th at i m pr i so nm en t wi l l m ake pay i ng r e s t i t ut i o n di ffi c ul t
. T he j ud g e c o ns i de r e d b utr ej e cted th es e ar g um en ts
. The r e was no abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. A FFI RMED .

1- 15- 09