Opinion ID: 75555
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Randall Hansen

Text: 145 Randall contends that the district court erred in not granting his requests for a downward departure under §§ 5K2.0 and under 5K2.11. As to a departure under § 5K2.0, he argues that his case fell outside the heartland of other environmental prosecutions and that he was at all times operating under the authority of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and upon the advice of his environmental counsel. As to a departure under § 5K2.11, he maintains that the district court erred in concluding that financial factors were not a perceived greater harm which could trigger a departure and in not understanding that the record supported his belief that a greater environmental, as well as economic, harm would occur at the site and in the community if the plant failed to remain operational. 41 146 At Randall's sentencing, the district judge stated: 147 [T]he Court acknowledges that it does have authority to depart from the guidelines pursuant to [§§ 5K2.0 and 5K.211] if it finds that the circumstances of this case warrant such a departure. 42 148 R9-9. He set forth the requirements for a departure under the guidelines, but found that no departure was warranted under either provision. 149 We may not review a district court's refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure. Mignott, 184 F.3d at 1290. Despite Randall's argument to the contrary, the district judge indicated his understanding that financial factors could be a perceived greater harm by weighing the harms associated with closing the plant and putting 300 employees out of work against keeping the plant open as an unsafe chor-alkali plant and keeping the employees working, but found that the financial factors were not a harm greater than the harms associated with the operation of an unsafe chlor-alkali plant. R14-9-11. Because the district court acknowledged that it had the authority to depart, we lack the jurisdiction to review the decision. 150 b. Taylor 151 Taylor also argues that the district court erred by not granting him a downward departure under §§ 5K2.0 and 5K2.11. As to the request for a departure under § 5K2.0, he maintains that his case fell outside the heartland of environmental cases. As to the request for a departure under § 5K2.11, he contends that he believed that closing the plant would cause a greater environmental harm that continuing operations. 152 Taylor presented each of his issues at sentencing. 43 R12-20-21. The district judge asked the probation officer to comment on Taylor's requests for a departure, and to specifically address Taylor's cooperation during the cleanup efforts. Id. at 21-22. The probation officer responded that there were no grounds for a downward departure. 44 Id. at 41. The district judge commented: 153 I am equally bound by the guidelines and by the law. And I do not have much discretion. 154 . . . 155 And I just cannot find a basis for departure under the guidelines, inasmuch as the facts as found are of the kind contemplated by the Sentencing Commission. 156 Id. at 42-43. 157 Because there is nothing in the record that indicates that the district court misapprehended its authority to depart downward, we assume that the district court understood its authority to depart and decided not to exercise its discretionary authority. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to address the district court's decision not to depart.