Opinion ID: 696249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adjustment for Repetitive Discharge

Text: 11 Catucci assigns error in the net four-level upward adjustment the sentencing court made pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 2Q1.2(b)(1)(A), which states: 12 If the offense resulted in an ongoing, continuous, or repetitive discharge, release or emission of a hazardous or toxic substance or pesticide into the environment, increase by 6 levels. 13 Catucci argues that it was mere happenstance that the two PCB-laden transformers were dumped on different days. Consequently, he contends, absent evidence that he intended repetitive discharges the district court misapplied the repetitive discharge adjustment. We discern no error. 2 After adopting a six-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. Sec. 2Q1.2(b)(1)(A), the district court invoked Application Note 5 as authority for a two-level downward departure, resulting in a net upward adjustment of four levels. Application Note 5 expressly states that the district court is invested with authority to make a departure of up to two levels in either direction depending upon the quantity and duration of the discharge and the nature of the harm caused by it. U.S.S.G. Sec. 2Q1.2, comment. (n. 5). 14 U.S.S.G. Sec. 2Q1.2(b)(1)(A) is triggered if the offense resulted in an ongoing, continuous or repetitive discharge. Catucci concedes that the two PCB-laden transformers were dumped on separate occasions. Nothing more need be shown to activate the repetitive discharge adjustment. See United States v. Liebman, 40 F.3d 544, 550 (2d Cir.1994) (repetitive discharge adjustment under Sec. 2Q1.2(b)(1)(A) warranted where defendant had untrained workers remove hazardous material from factory, and workers unlawfully dumped material on several different days); United States v. Strandquist, 993 F.2d 395, 401 (4th Cir.1993) (analogous upward adjustment under Sec. 2Q1.3(b)(1)(A) for repetitive discharge triggered by establishing second discharge).