Rate this article:  
Gard News 203, August/October 2011

By Steven P. Solow and Anne M. Carpenter,
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington, D.C.

A survey of recent developments in vessel pollution enforcement and prosecution in the US.

art_4_1.jpg

Introduction1
It has been over a year since the 20th April 2010 explosion on the DEEPWATER HORIZON drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting oil spill (the Gulf spill) has been the subject of multiple investigations and analyses. According to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, created on 20th May 2010, the ‘‘immediate cause'' of the spill was a ‘‘series of identifiable mistakes'' by the companies in charge of the rig.2

A hundred spills could be similarly described. The significance of the Gulf spill, given its size and the tragic human losses that occurred, will be analysed in many different ways. For the purposes of this article, we first look at the spill in terms of what it may mean for the criminal prosecution of environmental violations.

This article then moves to an analysis of current international projects that highlight cross-national co-operation in vessel pollution enforcement.  Finally, we provide a review of significant vessel pollution enforcement cases from 2010, and the start of 2011.

The Clean Water Act: proposals to expand restitution and increase sanctions
Legislation introduced in the wake of the Gulf spill seeks to expand the scope of restitution that may be imposed following a criminal conviction of an environmental crime. At present, a federal judge has the discretion to impose restitution to an identifiable victim, but not, for example, for harm caused to natural resources.3 In 1996, the U.S. Senate attempted to revise the federal sentencing statutes to expand the scope of restitution in criminal cases by allowing judges to order restitution to communities harmed by environmental crimes.4 That attempt failed. The proposed post-spill legislation would expand the scope of restitution by mandating that judges order restitution to victims of criminal violations of the Clean Water Act.5 The bill does not propose to authorise the order of restitution to communities as a whole.6

The bill also would direct the United States Sentencing Commission to review the sentencing guidelines for Clean Water Act offences ‘‘in order to reflect the intent of Congress that penalties for the offences be increased [to] appropriately account for the actual harm to the public and the environment from the offences.''7 If this effort goes forward, we may see similar efforts with regard to the other major environmental statutes, or a comprehensive effort, such as that proposed in 1996, to expand the scope of restitution to all environmental criminal convictions.

Environmental crime investigation and prosecution as a zero sum game
Absent from the many analyses in the media has been any meaningful reporting on the impact of the criminal investigation of the Gulf spill on the rest of the government's environmental crime enforcement efforts. This is especially of note with the news that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has transferred the criminal investigation of the Gulf spill from the Environmental Crimes Section in the Environment and Natural Resources Division to the Criminal Division.8

Given the relatively small amount of federal resources typically devoted to environmental criminal matters, the impact of investigating and (if appropriate) prosecuting cases arising out of the Gulf spill is significant. EPA recently touted the growth of its Criminal Investigation Division to a ‘‘full'' complement of 200 special agents.9 To put this into perspective, the FBI has somewhere north of 13,000 special agents.10 While other agencies are involved in environmental crime investigations, EPA is unquestionably the lead agency in this area, and the commitment of numerous agents to the Gulf spill investigation inevitably raises questions about EPA's ability to cover other matters.

The same resource questions existed for the Environmental Crimes Section at DOJ. During the government's investigation and prosecution efforts after the March 1989 EXXON VALDEZ spill, it has been said that, at one point or another, nearly all of the Justice Department's environmental crime prosecutors were working on the case. While it has grown in the past 20 years, the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section has approximately 35 trial attorneys. Even if only four or five of those attorneys are spending a significant amount of time on the Gulf spill investigation, that would be more than 10 per cent of the section's total. It is as yet unknown whether the department's decision to move the Gulf spill case into the Criminal Division will inject new resources into the case and free resources from the Environmental Crimes Section.

With regard to EPA, particularly in an atmosphere of budget cutting,11 it is similarly unknown whether another impact of the Gulf spill will be a reduction in the federal government's ability to more broadly investigate environmental crimes. If EPA were so constrained it could impact more than federal cases. In recent years EPA has expanded and strengthened its role in training and supporting the work of state and local environmental investigators and police. Hundreds of state law enforcement officers have been trained by EPA at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. Cuts to training budgets and other forms of state assistance could impact these resources as well.

As a means of comparison that may or may not be an artifact of resource allocation related to the spill, we can compare the reports of cases coming out of EPA Region 6 from 2009 to 2010. In 2009, a total of eight matters involved cases in Region 6.12 A review of 2010 indicates one.

As in any major case, the government will have to decide just how much investigation of the Gulf spill it can afford. As one former Justice Department lawyer has observed, "A prosecutor is not obligated to take every possible step in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence. Rather, the prosecutor should consciously engage in an analysis of proportionality in choosing which investigative steps to pursue, and how aggressively to pursue them".13 The availability of resources is a legitimate consideration in determining the scope and extent of a government criminal investigation.14 The underlying reason for the shift of the Gulf spill case to the Criminal Division is not publicly known. Whatever the reason, moving sole responsibility for prosecuting the spill case to that division may allow the Department's Environmental Crimes Section to continue to play a leading role in investigating and prosecuting other environmental crime matters around the country.

Who's in charge after a major incident?
Another issue receiving scant coverage is the remarkable, and remarkably confusing, number of agreements that address the federal government's inter-agency co-ordination following a significant event such as the Gulf spill. There is insufficient space here to address each memorandum of understanding that exists between and among the various agencies responding to the spill. Indeed, several MOUs were created specifically to co-ordinate work involving the Gulf spill.

Part of what is remarkable about these agreements is that they are generally the result of bilateral discussions between two government agencies and do not reflect other MOUs that exist between these same agencies and other agencies. To provide a shorthand way of visualising the MOUs between and among the federal agencies with authority to investigate environment and safety matters, we have provided the illustration below.

 

Federal Agencies with Memorandums of Understanding in Environmental and Safety Investigations

art_4_2.jpg

Agencies identified above (clockwise starting from top): Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard; National Transportation Safety Board; Chemical Safety Board; Department of Interior; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement; Department of Transportation; Environmental Protection Agency.

From the perspective of those who must represent entities and individuals who are the subject of such inquiries, these MOUs create more questions than answers. If an individual or entity is approached by one agency to provide information or to be asked for an interview, it is often impossible to know whether the agency is the ‘‘lead'' agency, or whether it is operating in co-ordination with, or independently from, other agencies. This situation not only creates issues for those outside the government, but also raises questions within the government because it can result in a lack of clear lines of authority and communication with regard to issues such as evidence preservation and forensic analyses. Without doubt, as the government's criminal investigation of the Gulf spill moves forward, increasing attention should be paid to whether and how its handling of this case impacts other cases involving multiple agencies and parallel safety, civil, and criminal investigations.

International co-operation in vessel pollution enforcement and prosecution
Over the last few years, governments have increased their co-ordinated efforts to investigate and prosecute vessel cases.  Although many are familiar with these developments as they have occurred, we have summarised them below in an effort to provide an overview of what we see as a growing culture of international co-operation to investigate and bring enforcement actions involving maritime vessel pollution.

The Interpol Pollution Crime Working Group
As is widely known, Interpol's Pollution Crime Working Group is a consortium of criminal investigators from Interpol's 188 member countries, which shares information to develop new strategies to control global environmental crime.15  The Group includes various project-teams including the Clean Seas Project, led by an officer of the Australian Maritime Safety Administration.  The Group developed a manual on investigating vessel pollution and plans to develop and deliver a training course to international law enforcement officers using the manual as a guide.16  In an effort to provide enforcement guidance, and publicise shipping companies and ships that violate pollution law, the Clean Seas Project also maintains a Ship Pollution Prosecution Database that contains information on completed prosecutions by various countries for the period 2001 to 2006.17

Aquapol
Aquapol is a self-governing association of maritime and inland navigation-related law enforcement authorities from the member states of the European Union and Switzerland.18  The organisation, founded in 2002 by the Dutch, German and Belgian Water Police Forces, is an effort to improve co-ordination of inland and maritime shipping-related law enforcement in Europe through the exchange of good practice, joint training, joint international control operations, and joint legislation and lobbying efforts.19

The North Sea Network
The North Sea Network of Investigators and Prosecutors (NSN), a group of coastal countries bordering the North Sea, works to enforce international rules and standards under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), and the numerous regulations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).20  Because of the density of ship traffic and close proximity of the coastal states, the NSN has facilitated joint efforts to investigate and prosecute cases crossing national borders.21  The participating coastal states include Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The NSN was begun by Norway in 2002, and facilitates the exchange of information between the member states regarding legal and evidentiary requirements, as well as surveillance data.22  The NSN has created an international manual that offers guidance on the detection of maritime oil pollution offences, collection of evidence, and imposition of penalties for offenders.23

Maritime MOUs
Under the leadership of the IMO, various MOUs have been established between consortiums of port states to co-ordinate compliance inspections under Marpol 73/78. To date, MOUs have been signed covering all of the world's oceans: the Paris MOU covers Europe and the North Atlantic; the Tokyo MOU covers Asia and the Pacific; the Acuerdo de Viña del Mar covers Latin America; the Caribbean MOU covers the Caribbean; the Abuja MOU covers West and Central Africa; the Black Sea MOU covers the Black Sea region; the Mediterranean MOU covers the Mediterranean; the Indian Ocean MOU covers the Indian Ocean; and the Riyadh MOU covers six Persian Gulf states.24  As time passes, and enforcement efforts rise, these documents are becoming increasingly meaningful.  For example, it appears that vessel pollution enforcement training in the Arab countries that operate under the Riyadh MOU (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE) has increased in recent years.  While the Riyadh MOU was enacted in 2004,25 the increases in enforcement training suggest that it may only be a matter of time before these countries begin to step up enforcement on vessels transiting their waters.

An example of international co-operation to effectively and efficiently prosecute vessel pollution can be seen in United States v. Ionia Mgmt S.A.26  In Ionia, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the conviction of the shipping company Ionia Management S.A. for violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships for failure to maintain an accurate Oil Record Book for the M/T KRITON while in US waters.  The crew of the M/T KRITON, a 600-foot oil tanker managed by Ionia, routinely discharged oily waste into the ocean through a "magic hose" at the direction of the ship's Chief Engineers.27 The crew also made false entries into the Oil Record Book to conceal the discharges and hid the "magic hose" from US Coast Guard inspectors.  The Netherlands Royal Military Police provided the US Coast Guard with evidence of illegal dumping which helped secure the conviction against the company for violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.28

Vessel enforcement cases of note29
United States v. Koo's Shipping Company30 - Koo's Shipping Company, a Taiwanese Corporation, pleaded guilty in federal court to charges of making false statements, knowingly failing to fully and accurately maintain an oil record book, and knowingly discharging oily bilge waste into Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa, without using proper pollution prevention equipment. A Coast Guard inspection of the company's ship M/V SYOTA MARU on 17th August 2010 revealed evidence of the violations. The company was sentenced to pay a USD 750,000 criminal fine and USD 250,000 in community service payments for projects in American Samoa. The company was also placed on three years' probation.

United States v. Cardiff Marine, Inc.31 - Cardiff Marine, Inc., a Liberian-registered shipping company, was sentenced in a Baltimore federal court for a felony violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships after the company pleaded guilty to making false statements to the Coast Guard, falsification of discharge records from the M/V CAPITOLA, and other acts of concealment.A Coast Guard investigation of the company was launched on 3rd May 2010 after a crew member informed a clergyman, who was on board on a pastoral visit, about "monkey business in the engine room" involving a "magic pipe." The crew member gave the clergyman a flash drive containing a video taken of the ship's engine room and asked him to alert the Coast Guard. The investigation revealed that the "magic pipe" was a bypass hose that enabled the dumping of waste oil overboard. The company was sentenced to pay a USD 2.4 million fine and three years' probation, during which time third-party auditors will administer an environmental compliance plan for the company.

United States v. Stanships, Inc., et al.32 - Standships, Inc., Stanships, Inc., Standard Shipping, Inc., and Calmore Maritime, Ltd. pleaded guilty on 12th  April 2011 to violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, Ports and Waterways. Investigation into the defendants began on 29th November 2010 after a crew member reported to the Coast Guard that the ship M/V AMERICANA had a "magic pipe" that bypassed pollution controls to dump oily waste overboard. The crew deliberately pumped engine waste overboard and created false Oil Record Books to conceal the illegal dumping. Efforts were made to hide the pipe when the ship was in port. The defendants were also charged with failing to report a situation hazardous to US waterways because the ship entered the Mississippi River without a fully-functioning generator and the crew was unable to power the ship. Under the terms of the plea agreement all defendants are banned from operating in the United States for a period of five years. Defendants must also pay USD 1 million in restitution, of which USD 250,000 will be devoted to conservation and protection of wildlife in the area.

United States v. Dimitrios Grifakis33 - Dimitrios Grifakis pleaded guilty to obstructing a federal Coast Guard investigation that was examining the use of a "magic pipe" to bypass required pollution controls on the M/V CAPITOLA.  Grifakis admitted he instructed subordinates to dump oily waste overboard via the pipe between March 2009 and 3rd May 2010.  Grifakis obstructed the investigation into the dumping by falsifying the M/V CAPITOLA's Oil Record Books and failing to produce Daily Sounding Records for the ship, which could have helped pinpoint days when dumping occurred. Cardiff Marine, Inc., the shipping company responsible for the M/V CAPITOL, pleaded guilty on 3rd February 2011 to violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. The company was fined USD 2.4 million and will serve three years' probation.

United States v. Fleet Management Ltd.34 - Fleet Management Ltd., a Hong Kong-based ship management firm, pleaded guilty to a criminal violation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as well as felony obstruction of justice and false statement charges. The firm was ordered to pay USD 10 million and sentenced to three years' probation for its role in the COSCO BUSAN oil spill and related cover-up after the ship struck the San Francisco Bay Bridge in November 2007. Fleet Management concealed ship records and falsified and forged documents to influence the Coast Guard's investigation. The collision killed at least 2,000 migratory birds including Brown Pelicans, Marbled Murrelets and Western Grebes. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Fleet Management was ordered to direct USD 2 million of the USD 10 million penalty to fund marine environmental projects in the San Francisco Bay. The firm was also ordered to implement a comprehensive compliance plan to heighten training and voyage planning for ships engaged in trade with the United States.

United States v. Irika Shipping S.A.35- Irika Shipping S.A., a ship management corporation, pleaded guilty to felony obstruction of justice charges and violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Irika was ordered to pay more than USD 4 million in fines and community service restitution for deliberately concealing vessel pollution from the M/V IRANA, one of the company's cargo ships that made port calls in US cities. The ship's chief engineer directed the dumping of approximately 6,000 gallons of waste oil overboard through a bypass hose that circumvented pollution prevention equipment. Irika also received five years' probation, during which the company is required to develop an enhanced environmental compliance plan covering all its ships, including any new vessels.

United States v. Avaz,36 United States v. Mogultay,37 United States v. Atlas Ship Management Ltd.38 - Gunduz Avaz, a Turkish citizen and the chief engineer on the cargo ship M/V AVENUE STAR, operated by Atlas Ship Management Ltd., was sentenced to five years' probation for failing to fully and accurately maintain an oil record book in violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Avaz failed to record illegal discharges of oil-contaminated waste from the engine room of the ship that was transferred to a ballast storage tank, and then disposed of at sea as the vessel travelled from Honduras to Tampa, Florida. Yavuz Mogultay, the second assistant engineer, was charged separately for the use of a bypass hose to discharge waste and the failure to record the discharges in the ship's oil record book. Mogultay was sentenced to five years' probation. Atlas Ship Management Ltd. separately pleaded guilty to making false statements and knowingly failing to accurately maintain an oil record book. The company was sentenced to three years' probation and a USD 800,000 fine. The company was also ordered to pay USD 100,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and implement an environmental compliance programme covering inspection and audit of its ships that sail into the United States.

United States v. Aksay Denizcilik Ve Ticaret A.S.39 - Aksay Denizcilik Ve Ticaret A.S., a Turkish corporation that operated the ship M/T KERIM, pleaded guilty to making a false statement and failure to fully and accurately maintain an oil record book. Between 2006 and 2009 officers and crew of the M/T KERIM, under the direction of Aksay, used a pipe to bypass the ship's oil pollution prevention equipment and discharge oil-contaminated waste directly into the ocean. Aksay was sentenced to three years' probation and a USD 725,000 fine, and ordered to implement an environmental compliance programme.

United States v. DRD Towing Co. LLC,40United States v. Dantin41- DRD Towing Co. LLC pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, and a misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act. Randall Dantin, a co-owner of the company, also pleaded guilty to a separate charge of obstruction of justice. DRD Towing assigned employees to operate vessels without proper Coast Guard licensing, paid captains to operate without a relief captain, and created environmentally hazardous conditions by negligently discharging oil. The company admitted that the M/V MEL OLIVER was pushing a tanker barge of fuel oil when it crossed the path of the M/T TINTOMARA and caused a collision resulting in the discharge of 282,686 gallons of fuel into the Mississippi River. DRD Towing was sentenced to two years' probation and a USD 200,000 fine, while Dantin was sentenced to 21 months in prison, two years of supervised release, and a USD 50,000 fine.

United States v. The China Navigation Co. Pte. Ltd.42- The China Navigation Co. Pte. Ltd., a marine cargo vessels operation, pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships based on its failure to maintain an oil record book. The oil record book failed to note that the crew had discharged approximately 275 gallons of oil-contaminated waste collected by crew members after an on-board oil spill in violation of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the company agreed to pay a USD 75,000 fine, serve two years' probation, implement an environmental compliance plan, and pay USD 25,000 to the Columbia River Estuarine Coastal Fund.

United States v. Cooperative Success Maritime S.A.43 - Cooperative Success Maritime S.A., the operator of the M/T CHEM FAROS, a cargo ship that regularly transported cargo between foreign ports and the United States, pleaded guilty to violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and making false statements. The crew of the M/T CHEM FAROS discharged approximately 13,200 gallons of oil-contaminated waste into the ocean, and falsified entries in the oil record book to conceal the amount of oil-contaminated bilge waste that was actually stored aboard the ship. The company was sentenced to a USD 850,000 fine, of which USD 150,000 was directed to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, five years' probation, and the implementation of an environmental compliance programme.

United States v. Sikharulidze44 - Vaja Sikharulidze, former chief engineer of the M/T CHEM FAROS, operated by Cooperative Success Maritime S.A., pleaded guilty to violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships for failure to properly maintain an oil record book recording disposal of contaminated waste. On at least one occasion, Sikharulidze directed subordinate crew members to bypass the ship's oil-water separator, and pump oil-contaminated waste directly overboard. Approximately 13,200 gallons of oil-contaminated waste was discharged into the ocean. Sikharulidze received one year's probation and seven days of home confinement for his conduct.

United States v. Dimitrios Dimitrakis45 - Dimitrios Dimitrakis, chief engineer of the M/V NEW FORTUNE cargo ship, was sentenced to three years' probation, and a USD 5,000 fine for aiding and abetting the failure to maintain an oil record book. Dimitrakis routinely ordered his crew to bypass the oil pollution prevention equipment and discharge oil-contaminated materials directly into the ocean when entering US waters. Dimitrakis concealed these discharges via false entries into the ship's oil record book. Volodymyr Dombrovskyy, another crew member, was sentenced to two years' probation, and a USD 500 fine for aiding and abetting the failure to maintain an oil record book. Transmar Shipping Co. S.A., the ship's operator, was separately sentenced for failure to maintain an oil record book and false statements made to a federal official, three years' probation, a USD 750,000 fine, a USD 100,000 community service payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and was ordered to implement an environmental compliance programme.

Footnotes
1 Portions of this article previously appeared in: Steven P. Solow & Anne M. Carpenter, The State of Environmental Crime Enforcement: A Survey of Developments in 2010, Daily Env't Report (BNA) No. 50 DEN B-1 (Mar. 15, 2011).
2 National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, Report to the President, Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, p. vii (January 2011), available at http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/final-report.
3 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553, 3663.
4 Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act of 1996, S. 2096, 104th Cong. (1996).
5 Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act of 2011, S. 350, 112th Cong. (2011) (proposing to amend 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)). See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s350is/pdf/ BILLS-112s350is.pdf BILLS-112s350is.pdf.
6 See id.
7Id.
8 ‘‘Justice Department Sets Up Task Force for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Investigation''(46 DEN A-11, 3/9/11).
9 ‘‘Giles Says EPA Pursuing High-Impact Cases, Adding Criminal Investigators to Staff'' (184 DEN A-7, 9/24/10).
10 See http://www2.fbi.gov/quickfacts.htm.
11 The President's proposed budget for FY2012 cuts, among other things, the EPA budget for ‘‘Forensic Support'' by thousands of dollars - a pittance in the deficit abyss, but potentially significant to EPA's ability to provide functional support for investigations. See http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2012.html
12 EPA Region 6 covers Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and the areas covered by 66 Native American Tribes.
13 See Rory K. Little, Proportionality as an Ethical Precept for Prosecutors in Their Investigative Role, 68 Fordham l. Rev. 723, 770 (1999).
14 See ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations, 2.1(c)(vi), available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/policy/standards.html.
15 See Interpol, The Pollution Crime Working Group, available at http://www.interpol.int/Public/EnvironmentalCrime/Pollution/WorkingGroup.asp.
16Id.
17Id.
18 See Aquapol, International Police Cooperation on the Water, available at http://www.aquapol-police.com/.
19Id.
20 See The North Sea Network of Investigators and Prosecutors, available at http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00580623000000_000000_000000.
21Id.
22Id.
23Id.
24 See International Maritime Organization, Port State Control, available at http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/Implementation/Pages/PortStateControl.aspx.
25 See Riyadh Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, available at  http://www.riyadhmou.org/.
26 555 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009).
27 555 F.3d at 306. 
28 See Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Tanker Company Fined $4.9 Million for Falsifying Records and Obstruction of Justice (Dec. 14, 2007).
29 Like other sources, our data on environmental criminal cases is probably incomplete. Our sources, among others, include the websites of EPA and DOJ, as well as BNA's Daily Environment Report, and the always useful Environmental Crimes Blog of Walter James, accessible at http://www.environmentalblog.typepad.com.
30 No. 1:11-cr-00034-GK-1 (D.D.C. guilty plea entered Mar. 31, 2011).
31 No. 1:11-cr-00058-MJG (D. Md. guilty plea entered Mar. 17, 2011).
32 No. 2:11-cr-00057-CJB (E.D. La. guilty plea entered April 12, 2011).
33 No. 1:11-cr-00011-MJG (D.Md. guilty plea entered May 5, 2011).
34 No. 3:08-cr-00160-SI (N.D. Cal. sentencing Feb. 19, 2010).
35 Nos. 1:10-cr-00403-JSM and 1:10-cr-00372-JSM (D. Md. sentencing Sept. 21, 2010).
36 No. 8:10-cr-00286-JSM (M.D. Fla. sentencing Sept. 7, 2010).
37 No. 8:10-cr-00264-JDW (M.D. Fla. sentencing Aug. 26, 2010).
38 No. 8:10-cr-00363-SDM (M.D. Fla. sentencing Dec. 2, 2010).32 No. 2:11-cr-00057-CJB (E.D. La. guilty plea entered April 12, 2011).
39 No. 8:10-cr-00116-RAL (M.D. Fla. sentencing May 21, 2010).
40 No. 2:10-cr-00191-ILRL (E.D. La. sentencing Jan. 19, 2011).
41 No. 2:10-cr-00190-ILRL (E.D. La. sentencing Jan 19, 2011).
42 No. 3:10-cr-05181-BHS (W.D. Wash. sentencing Mar. 22, 2010).
43 No. 4:10-cr-00035-D (E.D.N.C. sentencing June 7, 2010).
44 No. 4:10-cr-00032-D (E.D.N.C. sentencing Aug. 17, 2010).
45 No. 4:10-cr-00552-DLJ (N.D. Cal. sentencing Sept. 30, 2010).

Any comments on this article can be e-mailed to the Gard News Editorial Team.