* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.

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

Cont rol 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.2 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 P ollut ion 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 Gre uling 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 Greulin g (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. U nited States v. Beuttenmuller

, 29 F.3d 973, 981-82 (5th Cir. 1995). “Association means

that th e defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal. . . . Participation means that the

defendant engaged in some affirmative conduct designed to aid the venture. ” U nited States v.

Salazar

, 66 F.3d 723, 729 (5th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). To prove a violation of the Cl ean

Water Act, the Government must show that the defendant knowingly violated a requirement imposed3

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 op erations, 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 th e 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 t hat 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. The4

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 limit s. From 1986

to 1988, EPPW was cited by the Utility for discharging wastewater into the sewer system in violation

of the discharge limit s 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 t he company in the

local newspaper as a “significant violator.”

In 1990, the Utility continued to detect violations of discharge limit s 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.

B etween May 1990 and the December 1990 cut-off date, the Utility continued to monitor

EPPW’s discharges, and in response to G r euling’s complaints about the Utility’s sampling

procedures, hired an independent contractor to collect the samples. Illegal discharges were detected

in both July and De cember 1990. In January 1991, in a further effort to bring the company into

compliance with the discharge limit s, the Utility excavated the sewer lines outside of the EPPW plant

and replaced them with new piping to protect against the possibil it y o f 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 Ut ilit y that enabled EPPW to

continue operating, including mult iple promises that the company would end the discharge problem5

by disconnecting completely from the sewer system. Greuling failed to have EPPW disconnect ed

completely from the sewer system. As a result, the improper discharging of untreated wastewater

continued.

The evidence showed that, despite his ext ensive knowledge of the plant’s ongoing

inadequacies an d 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

t hings. The EPPW sales manager and the EPPW accountant both testified that the co mpany 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 t hat, 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 Gre uling did not participate physically in the discharging, as did other plant

employees, including Molina, the evidence e st ablished 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.” U nited States v. Vaden , 912 F.2d 780, 783 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation6

o mit t ed). 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 a bet ted in the illegal discharging of untreated wastewater from the

EPPW plant. S ee 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.