United States v. Aerolite Chrome Corporation

990 F.2d 1261 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AEROLITE CHROME CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-10404. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 9, 1993. * Decided March 22, 1993. Before GOODWIN, NOONAN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Defendant Aerolite Chrome Corporation (Aerolite Chrome) appeals its conviction on 11 counts of knowingly discharging pollutants in violation of pretreatment standards. Aerolite Chrome claims that its motion of acquittal should have been granted when its sole corporate agent was acquitted of the same conduct. Aerolite Chrome also contends that its motion to suppress should have been granted because of deficiencies in the search warrant and accompanying affidavit. We affirm the conviction. FACTS 3 Arthur Thomas was the majority shareholder and sole officer of Aerolite Chrome Corporation. Aerolite Chrome entered into a partnership with…