How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask atluriram Your Own Question

atluriram
atluriram, Professor
Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 533
Experience:  MASTER OF COMMERCE, BACHELOR OF LAWS, COMPANY SECRETARY QUALIFICATIONS
22289965
Type Your Homework Question Here...
atluriram is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Review the Capstone case U.S. v. Hanousek. What is the issue

Resolved Question:

Review the Capstone case U.S. v. Hanousek. What is the issue the court had to decide? What was the court’s ruling and rationale? Do you agree with the court? Why, or why not? Should simple negligence be a basis for criminal liability?

written response question should contain a minimum 200-300 word response.
b.Spelling and grammar will impact your grade. Make certain to proofread each written response carefully before clicking on the submit button.
c.Make certain that all of your sources (including your textbook) are referenced at the end of the written response and that directly quoted information within your written response is cited to show the difference between your ideas and the exact words of your sources.
d.General encyclopedias are prohibited sources. They are NOT to be used.

Examples of prohibited sources include, but are not limited to, Wikipedia, Encarta, and World Book.

I need to have this assignment completed for me by tomorrow evening.

Thank you again for your assistance.
Submitted: 4 years ago.
Category: Homework
Expert:  atluriram replied 4 years ago.

atluriram :

sir/madam

atluriram :

I am interested on this assignment, Please let me know what is the approximate of date of delivery

atluriram :

with regards

atluriram :

atluri ramesh

atluriram :

Note : I just recently given answer for another case for which you have given acceptance. Thank you

Customer :

I need for this assignment to be completed and returned to me by later this evening. Thank you for your assistance.

atluriram, Professor
Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 533
Experience: MASTER OF COMMERCE, BACHELOR OF LAWS, COMPANY SECRETARY QUALIFICATIONS
atluriram and 2 other Homework Specialists are ready to help you
Expert:  atluriram replied 4 years ago.
Sir/madam

I herewith submit the answer

with regards
atluri ramesh

-------------------------


ASSIGNMENT
Review the Capstone case U.S. v. Hanousek. What is the issue the court had to decide? What was the court’s ruling and rationale? Do you agree with the court? Why, or why not? Should simple negligence be a basis for criminal liability? written response question should contain a minimum 200-300 word response.

ANSWER
CASE DETAILS
Case Name : United States v. Hanousek
Authority : U.S.Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999, SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES
Case No. : 99-323
Nature of petition: Writ petition for the orders of Certiorari
Petitioner : XXXXX XXXXXousek, Jr
Decided: Decided on January 10, 2010 stating denial of writ petition.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner XXXXX XXXXXousek, Jr was employed by the Pacific & Arctic Railway and Navigation Company (Pacific & Arctic). As part of the duty of road master, the petitioner was responsible for every safe and efficient maintenance and construction of track. One of the project namely “6mile” was also under supervision. On October 1, 1994, there was incident that caused 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of oil were discharged to adjacent Skagway River which is navigable water of the United States. It is found that Hanousek negligently discharged duties that was harmful which is violation of Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319 (c) (1) (A) and 1321 (b) (3). Besides he was also charged conspiracy by giving false information to United States Coast Guard officials which is also violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, 1001. Based on the facts, the District Court imposed sentence of six months of imprisonment, six months in a halfway house and six months of supervised release besides fine of $5,000. Challenging the same, the petitioner made an appeal with the Supreme Court.
FINDINGS OF COURT
The petitioner contended that that District court tried to establish the violation of 33 U.S.C. 1319 ( c ) (1) (A) where the Hanousek did not acted with criminal negligence. His contention, that the said negligence is not criminal negligence and it may be ordinary negligence that was caused harmful quantity of oil into the Skagway River. Based on the Hanousek’s objection, the district court instructed the jury and the government is required to prove Hanousek acted negligently.

Section 1319 ( c) (1) (A) clearly provided that any person who negligently violated 33 U.S.C. 1321 (b) (3) shall be punished by fine or imprisonment or both. Here it should be noted that it is linked with negligent. The criminal provisions of CWA are designed to protect the public at large for consequences of pollution. The said incident was clearly falls within the category of public welfare legislation. Hence it was concluded the conviction was provided on the basis of own negligence of the petitioner. Hence the judgment given by the district is confirmed and certiorari cannot be granted.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner cannot simply tell that simply he was road master and did not know the laws of CWA (Clean Water Act). As long as he works in such responsible position must also be alter with the strict regulation. Though it is ordinary negligence, yet it was connected with criminal negligence as the public suffered at large. Hence District court’s decision is correct and Supreme Court denial on Certiorari is also welcome. Yes simple negligence also attract criminal liability.

REFERENCE :
1. http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2426/2484551/CJ140_Ch02.pdf
2. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-323.ZD.html



Edited by atluriram on 10/21/2010 at 3:00 AM EST
atluriram, Professor
Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 533
Experience: MASTER OF COMMERCE, BACHELOR OF LAWS, COMPANY SECRETARY QUALIFICATIONS
atluriram and 2 other Homework Specialists are ready to help you
Expert:  atluriram replied 4 years ago.
ASSIGNMENT
Review the Capstone case U.S. v. Hanousek. What is the issue the court had to decide? What was the court’s ruling and rationale? Do you agree with the court? Why, or why not? Should simple negligence be a basis for criminal liability? written response question should contain a minimum 200-300 word response.
ANSWER
CASE DETAILS
Case Name : United States v. Hanousek
Authority : U.S.Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999, SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES
Case No. : 99-323
Nature of petition: Writ petition for the orders of Certiorari
Petitioner : XXXXX XXXXXousek, Jr
Decided: Decided on January 10, 2010 stating denial of writ petition.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner XXXXX XXXXXousek, Jr was employed by the Pacific & Arctic Railway and Navigation Company (Pacific & Arctic). As part of the duty of road master, the petitioner was responsible for every safe and efficient maintenance and construction of track. One of the project namely “6mile” was also under supervision. On October 1, 1994, there was incident that caused 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of oil were discharged to adjacent Skagway River which is navigable water of the United States. It is found that Hanousek negligently discharged duties that was harmful which is violation of Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319 (c) (1) (A) and 1321 (b) (3). Besides he was also charged conspiracy by giving false information to United States Coast Guard officials which is also violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, 1001. Based on the facts, the District Court imposed sentence of six months of imprisonment, six months in a halfway house and six months of supervised release besides fine of $5,000. Challenging the same, the petitioner made an appeal with the Supreme Court.
FINDINGS OF COURT
The petitioner contended that that District court tried to establish the violation of 33 U.S.C. 1319 ( c ) (1) (A) where the Hanousek did not acted with criminal negligence. His contention, that the said negligence is not criminal negligence and it may be ordinary negligence that was caused harmful quantity of oil into the Skagway River. Based on the Hanousek’s objection, the district court instructed the jury and the government is required to prove Hanousek acted negligently.
Section 1319 ( c) (1) (A) clearly provided that any person who negligently violated 33 U.S.C. 1321 (b) (3) shall be punished by fine or imprisonment or both. Here it should be noted that it is linked with negligent. The criminal provisions of CWA are designed to protect the public at large for consequences of pollution. The said incident was clearly falls within the category of public welfare legislation. Hence it was concluded the conviction was provided on the basis of own negligence of the petitioner. Hence the judgment given by the district is confirmed and certiorari cannot be granted.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner cannot simply tell that simply he was road master and did not know the laws of CWA (Clean Water Act). As long as he works in such responsible position must also be alter with the strict regulation. Though it is ordinary negligence, yet it was connected with criminal negligence as the public suffered at large. Hence District court’s decision is correct and Supreme Court denial on Certiorari is also welcome. Yes simple negligence also attract criminal liability.

REFERENCE :
1. http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2426/2484551/CJ140_Ch02.pdf
2. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-323.ZD.html

Expert:  atluriram replied 4 years ago.
THIS ANSWER IS LOCKED!

You need to spend $3 to view this post. Add Funds to your account and buy credits.

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
< Last | Next >
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex Los Angeles, CA
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP Hesperia, CA
  • I couldn't be more satisfied! This is the site I will always come to when I need a second opinion. Justin Kernersville, NC
  • Just let me say that this encounter has been entirely professional and most helpful. I liked that I could ask additional questions and get answered in a very short turn around. Esther Woodstock, NY
  • Thank you so much for taking your time and knowledge to support my concerns. Not only did you answer my questions, you even took it a step further with replying with more pertinent information I needed to know. Robin Elkton, Maryland
  • He answered my question promptly and gave me accurate, detailed information. If all of your experts are half as good, you have a great thing going here. Diane Dallas, TX
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Manal Elkhoshkhany

    Tutor

    Satisfied Customers:

    4522
    More than 5000 online tutoring sessions.
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BU/BusinessTutor/2012-2-2_115741_Kouki2.64x64.jpg Manal Elkhoshkhany's Avatar

    Manal Elkhoshkhany

    Tutor

    Satisfied Customers:

    4522
    More than 5000 online tutoring sessions.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/ComputersGuru/2010-02-13_051118_Photo41.JPG LogicPro's Avatar

    LogicPro

    Engineer

    Satisfied Customers:

    3458
    Expert in Java C++ C C# VB Javascript Design SQL HTML
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/LI/lindaus/2012-6-10_04811_IMG20120609164157.64x64.jpg Linda_us's Avatar

    Linda_us

    Finance, Accounts & Homework Tutor

    Satisfied Customers:

    3124
    Post Graduate Diploma in Management (MBA)
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/chooser77/2009-08-18_162025_Chris.jpg Chris M.'s Avatar

    Chris M.

    M.S.W. Social Work

    Satisfied Customers:

    2385
    Master's Degree, strong math and writing skills, experience in one-on-one tutoring (college English)
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JawaadAhmed/2009-6-27_12137_SIs_SHadi.jpg F. Naz's Avatar

    F. Naz

    Chartered Accountant

    Satisfied Customers:

    1988
    Experience with chartered accountancy
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JK/jkcpa/2011-1-16_182614_jkcpa.64x64.jpg Bizhelp's Avatar

    Bizhelp

    CPA

    Satisfied Customers:

    1876
    Bachelors Degree and CPA with Accounting work experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/avremote/photoa.jpg Seanna's Avatar

    Seanna

    Tutor

    Satisfied Customers:

    1781
    3,000+ satisfied customers, all topics, A+ work
 
 
 
Chat Now With A Tutor
atluriram
atluriram
ADVOCATE
463 Satisfied Customers
MASTER OF COMMERCE, BACHELOR OF LAWS, COMPANY SECRETARY QUALIFICATIONS