Opinion ID: 173641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The legal standardsCount One

Text: Count One of the indictment charged Agosto with conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 371. To prove this crime, the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that Agosto entered into an agreement to commit an unlawful act; (2) [Agosto's] knowledge of the agreement and voluntary participation in it; and (3) an overt act by at least one of the coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Vázquez-Botet, 532 F.3d 37, 61 (1st Cir.2008) (citation omitted). The government must prove that Agosto had both the intent to agree and the intent to commit the substantive offense, United States v. Muñoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25, 45 (1st Cir.2007), namely violating 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311 and 1319(c)(2)(A). The CWA prohibits the discharge of any pollutant without a permit issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge System administered by the EPA or approved state agencies. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). The knowing violation of this prohibition is a felony under § 1319(c)(2)(A). The CWA defines the discharge of a pollutant as any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12), and includes as pollutants, sewage, . . . sewage sludge, . . . [and] biological materials. . . discharged into water. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). The term navigable waters is defined as waters of the United States, including the territorial seas. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). Agosto's sufficiency challenge is centered, first, on the knowledge requirement and, second, on the contention that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the unauthorized discharges were into waters of the United States. Agosto further maintains that the government was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew that the Creek fell within the CWA's definition of that term.