U.S. v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., Criminal No. 03-852 (MLC).

• Decision Date: 30 April 2009
• Docket Number: Criminal No. 03-852 (MLC).
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. ATLANTIC STATES CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, John Prisque, Scott Faubert, Jeffrey Maury, and Craig Davidson, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

627 F.Supp.2d 180

UNITED STATES of America v. ATLANTIC STATES CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, John Prisque, Scott Faubert, Jeffrey Maury, and Craig Davidson, Defendants.

Criminal No. 03-852 (MLC).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

April 30, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Andrew D. Goldsmith, U.S. Attorney General's Office, Environmental Crimes Section, Washington, DC, Norville P. McAndrew, James Thomas Kitchen, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Trenton, NJ, for Plaintiff United States of America.

John J. O'Reilly, Day Pitney LLP, Morristown, NJ, Thomas J. Kelly, Jr., Venable LLP, Washington, DC, Lawrence S. Lustberg, Gibbons PC, Newark, NJ, for Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipeline Co.

Michael D. Ctirchley, Critchley & K, LLC, Roseland, NJ, for John Prisque.

Michael D'Alessio, Jr., Walder Hayden & Brogan, PA, Roseland, NJ, Michael J. Sullivan, Timothy Ignatius Duffy, Mark K. Silver, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Morristown, NJ, for Scott Faubert.

Michael N. Pedicini, Morristown, NJ, for Jeffrey Maury.

Vincent Joseph Nuzzi, Nuzzi' & Mason, LLC, Dover, NJ, for Craig Davidson.

Maurice A. Griffin, Office of the Attorney General, Trenton, NJ, Phillip Leahy, Office of the NJ Attorney General, Division of Criminal Justice, Trenton, NJ, for New Jersey Department of Law & Public Safety.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MARY L. COOPER, District Judge.

                                                             INDEX TO MEMORANDUM OPINION
                PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................ 192
                DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 195
                  I. APPLICABLE GUIDELINE EDITION ................................................................ 195
                 II. CHAPTER TWO CALCULATIONS .................................................................... 197
                     A. OSHA-RELATED OFFENSES .................................................................... 197
                        1. Application of Section 2J1.2 to these offenses ........................................ 197
                        2. USSG § 2J1.2(a)—Base offense level..................................................... 198
                        3. USSG § 2J1.2(b)(2)—Substantial interference with the administration
                             of justice .......................................................................... 198
                     B. CWA-RELATED OFFENSES ..................................................................... 208
                        1. Review of convictions ................................................................. 208
                        2. USSG § 2Q1.3—Mishandling of environmental pollutants .................................. 209
                        3. USSG § 2Q1.3(a)—Base offense level ......................................... 211
                        4. USSG § 2Q1.3(b)(1)(A) or (B)—Discharge, release, or emission of
                             pollutant ........................................................................... 212
                        5. USSG § 2Q1.3(b)(4)—Discharge without or in violation of permit ............. 221
                        6. USSG § 2Q1.3, Notes 4 and 7—Departure of up to two levels either
                             direction ........................................................................... 222
                        7. USSG § 2Q1.3, Note 3—Departure involving negligent conduct ................. 229
                

                        8. USSG § 2F1.1(a)—Base offense level .................................................... 231
                     C. CAA-RELATED OFFENSES ..................................................................... 231
                        1. Review of convictions ................................................................. 231
                        2. USSG § 2Q1.3—Mishandling of environmental pollutants .................................. 232
                        3. USSG § 2Q1.3(a)—Base offense level ......................................... 233
                        4. USSG § 2Q1.3(b)(1)(A) or (B)—Discharge, release, or emission of
                             pollutant ........................................................................... 233
                        5. USSG § 2Q1.3(b)(4)—Discharge without or in violation of permit ........................ 236
                        6. USSG § 2Q1.3, Notes 4 and 7—Departure of up to two levels ............................. 236
                III. CHAPTER THREE, PART B (ROLE IN OFFENSE) ..................................................... 239
                     A. Guidelines Introductory Commentary ....................................................... 239
                     B. USSG § 3B1.1—Aggravating Role ............................................................ 240
                     C. USSG § 3B1.2—Mitigating Role ............................................................. 257
                     D. USSG § 3B1.3—Abuse of Position of Trust .................................................. 260
                        1. This enhancement has been applied most commonly in the contractual
                             setting. The contracts can be in the public or the private sector .................... 262
                        2. The enhancement has also been applied to public employees
                             occupying positions of trust ........................................................ 266
                        3. The enhancement has been applied to certain persons holding
                             government-issued professional or occupational licenses ............................. 267
                        4. The enhancement has been applied to a manager for abuse of trust by
                             forcing mine workers to falsify safety training certifications ...................... 268
                        5. There is sharp disagreement whether the enhancement applies to
                             environmental offenses by private persons ........................................... 269
                 IV. CHAPTER THREE, PART C (OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE) .............................................. 275
                     A. USSG § 3C1.1—Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice—
                          Perjury ................................................................................. 275
                        1. John Prisque .......................................................................... 281
                        2. Scott Faubert ......................................................................... 295
                        3. Jeffrey Maury ......................................................................... 312
                        4. Craig Davidson ........................................................................ 344
                     B. USSG § 3C1.1—Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice—
                          Unlawfully Influencing or Attempting to Influence a Witness ............................ 366
                  V. CHAPTER THREE, PART D (MULTIPLE COUNTS) ..................................................... 375
                     A. USSG § 3D1.1—Procedure for Determining Offense Level on Multiple
                          Counts ................................................................................. 375
                     B. USSG § 3D1.2—Groups of Closely Related Counts ............................................ 376
                     C. USSG § 3D1.4—Determining the Combined Offense Level ...................................... 380
                        1. John Prisque .......................................................................... 380
                        2. Scott Faubert ......................................................................... 382
                        3. Jeffrey Maury ......................................................................... 382
                        4. Craig Davidson ........................................................................ 383
                SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 383
                

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This memorandum opinion pertains to the sentencing of all defendants convicted in this case: ATLANTIC STATES CAST IRON PIPE CO., JOHN PRISQUE, SCOTT FAUBERT, JEFFREY MAURY, and CRAIG DAVIDSON. A summary of the counts of conviction as to each defendant may be found on the docket. (See dkt. 721 at 1-3, 112-13, 133-34.)¹ The parties were given notice of the contents of this memorandum on December 31, 2008, in the form of tentative rulings. Sentencing was completed on April 20-24, 2009. These tentative rulings were made final at the sentencing hearings, after the parties had been afforded full opportunity to respond.

The Court must sentence each defendant individually. However, the convictions in this multi-count, multi-defendant prosecution raise some common sentencing issues, as well as some separate issues. In addition, the post-Booker sentencing process for each defendant must include three steps, in which the Court must: (1) determine the guideline range; (2) rule on departure motions under the guidelines; and (3) determine the sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including ruling on any requests for variance from the guideline rulings. See United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190, 194-95 (3d Cir.2008). An indispensable part of arriving at a reasonable sentence is a correct calculation of the advisory guidelines range. See United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir.2006).

A ruling at Step 1 pertaining to a particular defendant here may be dispositive of an issue common to one or more other defendants. Therefore, the parties were given the opportunity to brief their arguments at Step 1 simultaneously, pursuant to scheduling orders entered for that purpose. (Dkt. 728, 729.) In doing so, the parties raised arguments on potential departures mentioned in the application notes for the Clean Water Act ("CWA") and Clean Air Act ("CAA") offenses. This memorandum contains a preliminary discussion of those issues, which were to be decided along with any other departure issues at Step 2.

This memorandum sets forth our guideline rulings at Step 1, concentrating primarily upon the calculations for each individual defendant. Some of these points also pertain to the corporate defendant, but the primary focus here is on guideline calculations for the...