F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

PUBLISH

FEB 13 1997

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

PATRICK FISHER

TENTH CIRCUIT

Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

No. 96-1338

LOUISIANA PACIFIC
CORPORATION, DANA DULOHERY,
and ROBERT MANN,
Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. No. CR-95-215-B)
(925 F. Supp. 1484)
John M. Haried, Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado (Lois J. Schiffer,
Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.; Henry
J. Solano, United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado; Brenda K. Taylor, Assistant United
States Attorney, Denver, Colorado; Elizabeth Ann Peterson and Robert L. Klarquist,
Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; and Gregory Foote, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., of counsel, with him on the brief) for PlaintiffAppellant.
Elliot R. Peters, Keker & Van Nest, L.L.P., San Francisco, California (Patrick J. Burke,
Law Office of Patrick J. Burke, Denver, Colorado; and Loretta M. Lynch and Steven A.
Hirsch, Keker & Van Nest, L.L.P., San Francisco, California, with him on the brief) for
Defendants-Appellees.
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

This case is before us on Defendants motion to dismiss for lack of appellate

jurisdiction. The government seeks to bring an interlocutory appeal of the district courts
denial of its motion to reconsider the dismissal of two overt acts from one count in a
multi-count indictment brought against Defendants under the Clean Air Act and the False
Statements Act.1 The government contends that we have jurisdiction over this
interlocutory appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. 3731. We determine
that we lack jurisdiction under 3731 and grant Defendants motion to dismiss.
The introductory facts of this case are more fully set forth in the district courts
opinion at United States v. Louisiana Pacific Corp., 908 F. Supp. 835 (D. Colo. 1995).
Thus, we provide only a limited introduction relevant to this appeal.
Defendant Louisiana Pacific Corporation manufactures a wood building product
called oriented strand board at its Montrose mill in Olathe, Colorado. The oriented strand
board is manufactured in a process involving the drying and compressing of wood chips
and the use of resins. The process releases pollutants into the air. In an effort to regulate
In this case, we consider the governments appeal of the denial of its motion
to reconsider as an appeal of the underlying order striking paragraphs 14(c) and 14(g) of
count 1. See Grubb v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 868 F.2d 1151, 1154 n.4 (10th Cir.
1989); Jones v. Nelson, 484 F.2d 1165, 1167-68 (10th Cir. 1973). See also United States
v. Hassan, 83 F.3d 693, 697 (5th Cir. 1996).
1

the mills emissions, the Colorado Department of Health issued Defendant Louisiana
Pacific an emission permit in January 1988, and, after several compliance disputes, a
second permit in January 1992. During the term of the 1988 permit, the government
alleges that Defendants knowingly falsified certain emissions reports and tampered with
monitoring equipment to achieve low opacity readings.
The government brought a 56-count indictment against Defendants, charging them
with various offenses including violations of a criminal provision of the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. 7413(c), and the False Statement Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001. Counts 28 through
31 charged Defendants Louisiana Pacific and Dana Dulohery under 42 U.S.C.
7413(c)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. 2 with making false statements concerning phenolic
formaldehyde (resin) exceedances of two percent of board weight. The district court
dismissed counts 28 through 31, ruling that resin reporting requirements are not part of
Colorados state implementation program maintained under the Clean Air Act, nor part of
the mills 1988 permit, and are, therefore, not federally enforceable. United States v.
Louisiana Pacific Corp., 908 F. Supp. 835, 844 (D. Colo. 1995). The government did not
appeal the dismissal of these counts.
Count 1 of the 56-count indictment charged Defendants Louisiana Pacific, Dana
Dulohery, and Robert Mann with conspiracy to violate a criminal provision of the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(c), and the False Statement Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001. In count 1,
the government charges that Defendants committed numerous overt acts, including the
3

ones described in paragraphs 14(c) and 14(g), in furtherance of the conspiracy.2

Paragraph 14(c) of count 1 alleges that Defendants submitted production and
consumption reports which understated Defendant Louisiana Pacifics use of phenolic
formaldehyde resin (resin). Similarly, paragraph 14(g) of count 1 charged that
Defendants created false production figures as part of Montrose mills permanent records.
The district court granted Defendants motion to strike both paragraphs. United States v.
Louisiana Pacific Corp., 925 F. Supp. 1484, 1489 (D. Colo. 1995). With respect to
paragraph 14(c), the district court ruled that the resin consumption reports were not within
the jurisdiction of the EPA. The district court found that the resin reporting requirements
were not in the mills 1988 permit or in Colorados state implementation program
maintained under the Clean Air Act and that no federal authority authorized the regulation
of resin. With respect to paragraph 14(g), the district court rejected the governments
contention that the production reports were within the purview of the False Statements
Act because the EPA has the authority to conduct inspections of all records kept by
Defendant Louisiana Pacific under 7414 of the Clean Air Act. The district court ruled
that the fact that the EPA can conduct an inspection during which the production records
might be reviewed is not a sufficient nexus to find that the production reports were within
In their motion to dismiss this appeal, Defendants contend, [T]he district
courts order struck less than one-tenth of the 129 overt acts specified in the conspiracy
count. Put another way, some 117 date-specific overt acts survived the district courts
order. The government does not dispute Defendants tabulation of the overt acts, and we
note that the indictment alleges numerous overt acts.
2

the jurisdiction of the EPA under the False Statements Act. The government filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order striking paragraphs 14(c) and 14(g), which the
district court denied. The government now seeks to appeal the denial of the motion for
reconsideration.
The government can take an interlocutory appeal only with specific statutory
authority. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 568 (1975). Also,
there is a presumption against the availability to the government of an interlocutory
appeal in a criminal case. United States v. Roberts, 88 F.3d 872, 883-84 (10th Cir. 1996).
The governments right to take an interlocutory appeal is limited to protect individuals
from the special hazards inherent in prolonged litigation with the sovereign. United
States v. Carrillo-Bernal, 58 F.3d 1490, 1497 (10th Cir. 1995). For example,
interlocutory appeals by the government implicate speedy trial concerns in some
circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Herman, 576 F.2d 1139, 1146-47 (5th Cir.
1978). The Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. 3731, provides:
In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of
appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an
indictment or information or granting a new trial after verdict or judgment,
as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal shall lie where the
double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further
prosecution.
An appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a
decision or order of a district court suppressing or excluding evidence or
requiring the return of seized property in a criminal proceeding, not made
after the defendant has been put in jeopardy and before the verdict or
finding on an indictment or information, if the United States attorney
5

certifies to the district court that the appeal is not taken for purpose of delay
and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the
proceeding.
An appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a
decision or order, entered by a district court of the United States, granting
the release of a person charged with or convicted of an offense, or denying
a motion for revocation of, or modification of the conditions of, a decision
or order granting release.
The appeal in all such cases shall be taken within thirty days after the
decision, judgment or order has been rendered and shall be diligently
prosecuted.
The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its
purposes.
The district courts order dismissed only two parts, or overt acts, of the conspiracy
count, and not the entire count. The conspiracy count includes allegations of numerous
other overt acts. Thus, the government urges us to read count in 3731 to mean
something less than an entire count. The First Circuit fashioned a test under which the
government can take an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing a portion of a
count if the portion provided a discrete basis for the imposition of criminal liability.
United States v. Sanabria, 548 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1976), revd, 437 U.S. 54 (1978).
Although the Supreme Court reversed the First Circuits decision in Sanabria on double
jeopardy grounds, it found, in dicta, no fault with the First Circuits reasoning that there
[was] no statutory barrier to an appeal from an order dismissing only a portion of a
count. Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 69 n.23 (1978). The Court argued that a
contrary rule would import empty formalism into a provision of the Criminal Appeals
6

Act designed to remove technical pleading barriers to appeals taken by the government.
Other circuits have also adopted the discrete basis test. See, e.g., United States v. Tom,
787 F.2d 65, 69-70 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Woolard, 981 F.2d 756, 757 (5th Cir.
1993)3; United States v. Hill, 55 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v.
Martin, 733 F.2d 1309, 1310-11 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied sub nom., Eklund v. United
States, 471 U.S. 1003 (1985); United States v. Marubeni America Corp., 611 F.2d 763,
764-65 (9th Cir. 1980). However, we decline to adopt the discrete basis test.
Justice Stevens points out the flaw in the Courts dicta regarding the discrete basis
test in Sanabria. Federal appellate courts must have specific statutory authority to
entertain an appeal, and 3731 does not provide for an appeal of the dismissal of less
than a full count of an indictment. Sanabria, 437 U.S. at 78-79 (Stevens, J., concurring)
([T]he statutory grant of appellate jurisdiction is still unequivocally limited to review of
a dismissal `as to any one or more counts.). In this case, the district court only
dismissed two overt acts from the conspiracy count of the indictment. Cf. Terry, 5 F.3d at
876 (holding that the dismissal of two of 24 overt acts from a conspiracy count did not
meet the discrete basis test where the government did not explain how the two overt acts
charged independent offenses). Such a dismissal does not invoke the clear language of
the statute and trigger jurisdiction.
Later the same year, but without reference to its opinion in Woolard, the
Fifth Circuit, with what seem to be doubts about the discrete basis test, refused to adopt
the test in United States v. Terry, 5 F.3d 874, 876 (5th Cir. 1993).
3

Rather than importing empty formalism into 3731, we are merely observing its
plain language. See United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 555 (1979) (a court
generally must observe a statutes plain language and cannot rewrite it in accordance with
its own conception of prudent public policy). As Justice Stevens reasoned, the language
of 3731 is unambiguous in referring to a count, and the statutes purpose to eliminate
technical distinctions in pleadings does not give us license to ignore the sections plain
language. Sanabria, 437 U.S. at 79 (Stevens, J., concurring). Although 3731 must be
liberally construed to effectuate its purposes, a court cannot interpret a statute in a way
fundamentally inconsistent with its plain language in the name of liberal construction.
Cf. United States v. Tom, 787 F.2d 65, 70-71 (2d Cir. 1986) (noting that a literal reading
of some of the dicta in Sanabria would result in a construction of 3731 which manifestly
contradicts its language). Moreover, a plain language reading of 3731 best comports
with this circuits precedent setting forth our principles of statutory construction. See,
e.g., United States v. Morgan, 922 F.2d 1495, 1496 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S.
1207 (1991) (As in any case of statutory interpretation, we begin with the plain language
of the law. If the statutory language is clear, this will ordinarily end the analysis.);
Edwards v. Valdez, 789 F.2d 1477, 1481 (10th Cir. 1986) (It is a well established law of
statutory construction that, absent ambiguity or irrational result, the literal language of the
statute controls.).

It is not mere formalism, nor an irrational result, to require the government to

plead allegations in separate counts, a minimal burden, in order to preserve its right to
take an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal of such counts. As the majority in Sanabria
recognized: The precise manner in which an indictment is drawn cannot be ignored,
because an important function of the indictment is to ensure that, in case any other
proceedings are taken against the defendant for a similar offence, the record will show
with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction. Id. at 65-66
(quoting Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 764 (1962)). A rule that the
government may appeal from the `dismissal of a portion of a count, provided that the
portion establishes `a discrete basis of liability, fosters rather than eliminates technical
distinctions and encourages exactly the sort of nearsighted parsing of indictments that the
amendment was intended to discourage. Id. at 80 (Stevens, J., concurring).
Allowing the government to appeal the striking of the two overt acts from the
conspiracy count in this case would raise the special hazards inherent in prolonged
litigation with the sovereign. Carrillo-Bernal, 58 F.3d at 1497. Allegations of numerous
other overt acts remain to support the conspiracy count. An interlocutory appeal by the
government of the dismissal of these two overt acts is not only unauthorized by 3731

but would eviscerate the rule of limited availability of interlocutory appeals to the
government.4 See id. at 1493-97.
In summary, we cannot entertain an interlocutory appeal by the government in a
criminal case in the absence of statutory authority. The governments attempt to appeal
the dismissal of two overt acts from the conspiracy count of the indictment does not fall
within the scope of 3731. Thus, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal.
Defendants motion to dismiss is granted.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

Although the government contends that the district courts order deprived it
of a substantial and important theory of criminal liability, the government failed to appeal
the dismissal of counts 28-31, which cover substantially the same ground as the
allegations of paragraphs 14(c) and 14(g) of count 1. Counts 28-31 charged Defendants
with misreporting the use of a resin used in the mills manufacturing process.
Paragraph 14(c) makes substantially the same allegations and, in fact, incorporates the
operative paragraph of counts 28-31. The governments decision not to appeal the
dismissal of counts 28-31 undermines its assertions about the importance of paragraphs
14(c) and 14(g).
4

10