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

Decision Date30 April 2009
Docket NumberCriminal No. 03-852 (MLC).
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. ATLANTIC STATES CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, John Prisque, Scott Faubert, Jeffrey Maury, and Craig Davidson, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • United States v. Tonawanda Coke Corp., 10–CR–219S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • March 14, 2014
    ...or contract as to how to comply with governmental health and safety standards.” United States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 627 F.Supp.2d 180, 273 (D.N.J.2009).2 This does not, however, end the discussion. As stated in the Guidelines, this enhancement may also be based on an abuse ......
  • Prisque v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1213 (MLC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • January 19, 2016
    ...as to each of the defendants found guilty at trial. That opinion is 372 pages long in the docketed version. It is also published at 627 F.Supp.2d 180 (D.N.J. 2009), but we will cite to the docketed version here. 8. Petitioner also claims in his Section 2255 motion that "Mr. Critchley was al......
  • United States v. Gray
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 31, 2012
    ...of substantial interference have upheld a broad range of factual situations. See United States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 627 F.Supp.2d 180, 203–04 (D.N.J.2009) (collecting cases). In this case, Gray's falsification of documents, albeit not standing alone, made the investigation......
  • United States v. Seefried
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • October 29, 2022
    ...action “prevented the government from prosecuting” another investigative target); United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 627 F.Supp.2d 180, 200-04 (D.N.J. 2009) (defendants' actions obstructed agency's efforts to investigate a deadly accident); United States v. Weissman, 22 F.Supp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...CWA, SDWA and other unlawful activities in a f‌inancial transaction). 27. See, e.g., United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 627 F. Supp. 2d 180, 195 (D.N.J. 2009) (defendants charged with violating CAA and CWA as well as committing conspiracy and obstruction of justice); United St......
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 47 No. 2, March 2010
    • March 22, 2010
    ...Article (discussing corporate liability for environmental crimes). (591.) See United States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 627 F. Supp. 2d 180, 230 (D. N.J. 2009) (explaining that the mens rea required for a "knowing violation" of FIFRA is knowledge that the toxin is actually being ......
  • History of the Federal Environmental Crimes Program
    • United States
    • Environmental crimes deskbook 2nd edition Part One
    • June 20, 2014
    ...Case for a Consistent Approach , 96 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 435 (Winter 2006). 25. United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 627 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.N.J. 2009), af’d , United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied , Atl. States Co. v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 16......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT