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). |
Citation | 627 F.Supp.2d 180 |
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 |
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.
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-
United States v. Tonawanda Coke Corp.
...permit, license, 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 b......
-
Prisque v. United States
...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 alway......
-
United States v. Gray
...address the issue 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......
-
United States v. Anwar
...refusal to testify before the grand jury on four separate occasions was substantial); see also United States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 627 F.Supp.2d 180, 203–04 (D.N.J.2009) (collecting cases). 4. Mr. Anwar does not argue that his false bomb threat—which targeted a state univer......
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
...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
...CWA, SDWA and other unlawful activities in a financial transaction). 31. 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 the CAA and CWA as well as committing conspiracy and obstruction of justice); Unit......
-
Environmental Crimes
...CWA, SDWA and other unlawful activities in a financial transaction). 33. 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 the CAA and CWA as well as committing conspiracy and obstruction of justice); Unit......
-
Environmental crimes.
...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 ......