Court Opinion

ID: 2963463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:10:11.251137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.530282
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 7, 1995      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                    
                                  __________________

          No. 94-1195
                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 GIACOMO D. CATUCCI,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

               The opinion of this Court issued on May 24, 1995, is amended
          as follows:

               Cover sheet:  change spelling of appellant's attorney's name
          to "Marcia G. Shein".

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                                     
                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1195
        No. 94-1195

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.
                                          v.

                                 GIACOMO D. CATUCCI,
                                 GIACOMO D. CATUCCI,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                                     
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge] 
                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge] 
                                          __________________________

                                                     
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                                     
                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Marcia G. Shein, with  whom National Legal Services, Inc.  was on
             Marcia G. Shein, with  whom National Legal Services, Inc.  was on
             _______________             _____________________________
        brief for appellant.
        brief for appellant.
             Craig  N.  Moore, Assistant  United  States  Attorney, with  whom
             Craig  N.  Moore, Assistant  United  States  Attorney, with  whom
             ________________
        Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        __________________

                                                     
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                     May 24, 1995
                                     May 24, 1995
                                                     
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    CYR,  Circuit  Judge.   After  a  jury returned  guilty
                    CYR,  Circuit  Judge.
                    ___

          verdicts against  defendant-appellant Giacom  D. Catucci  on four

          toxic-waste dumping charges, the district court imposed a twenty-

          seven month  prison sentence  and Catucci  appealed.  Finding  no

          reversible error, we affirm.

                                          I
                                          I

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND
                                      __________

                    The salient facts  are recited in the light most favor-

          able to the verdicts.  United States v. Tuesta-Toro, 29 F.3d 771,
                                 _____________    ___________

          774 (1st  Cir. 1994).  In  1987, Catucci, then the  proprietor of

          Post Tron Systems, instructed  the plant superintendent to obtain

          cost quotations for removing  two PCB-laden electrical transform-

          ers  from  the  firm's  business premises  in  Providence,  Rhode

          Island.  The cost estimates ranged between $8,000 and $10,000 per

          unit.  Years later, in June 1991, Post Tron Systems' lending bank

          conducted  an  environmental   audit  and  specifically  informed

          Catucci  that the two transformers  containing PCBs would have to

          be  removed in  accordance with  Environmental Protection  Agency

          ("EPA") regulations.  Shortly  thereafter, Post Tron went out  of

          business.

                    During the  course  of subsequent  renovations  to  the

          business  facilities, Catucci  arranged  for Manuel  Almeida  and

          Timothy  Arcaro to remove a  conveyor belt system.   As compensa-

          tion, Almeida  and Arcaro  were to  retain the  salvageable scrap

          metal     approximating $40 per day in  value    recovered in the

          course of the renovations.   Almeida and Arcaro later  offered to

                                          3
                                          3

          remove  all five transformers at the site, including the two PCB-

          laden  ones, in return for the right  to retain the salvage value

          of their copper coils.  Although the plant superintendent remind-

          ed  Catucci that scrapping the  transformers would be against the

          law,  Catucci nevertheless  granted  permission, stating  to  the

          superintendent:  "If [Arcaro] wants them, he can have them all."

                    A few months  later, Almeida,  Arcaro and  a third  in-

          dividual    David  Dellinger    removed two units,  including one

          of  the PCB-laden  transformers, after  loosening their  lids and

          thereby  causing oil to leak  onto local streets  and I-95 during

          transportation.   At a secluded gravel pit, the remaining oil was

          dumped,  the copper coils were removed  and the transformers were

          abandoned.   The next day, the men  repeated the process with the

          three remaining units    one containing PCBs.

                    More  than  a  year later,  while  investigating  David

          Dellinger, the Rhode Island  Department of Environment Management

          ("DEM")  discovered the PCB-laden  oil that had  been dumped from

          the Post  Tron transformers.  A few weeks later, the DEM executed

          a  search warrant  at  the former  Post Tron  facility.   On  the

          following  day, Catucci informed the Providence Police Department

          that  the transformers had been stolen.  Not until several months

          after Arcaro and  Almeida were arrested  for stealing the  trans-

          formers  did Catucci admit to  having allowed them  to remove the

          transformers.  Even then  he claimed that they  had been told  to

          dispose of the transformers lawfully.

                    Thereafter, Catucci  was charged, in  two counts,  with

                                          4
                                          4

          causing  unlawful  disposal of  PCBs  in violation  of  15 U.S.C.

           2615(b) and, in  two additional counts, with  failing to provide

          immediate notification  of a  release of hazardous  materials, in

          violation  of 42 U.S.C.    9603(b).  Following  his conviction on

          all counts, Catucci was sentenced to twenty-seven months.  

                                          II
                                          II

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

          A.   Sufficiency of the Evidence
          A.   Sufficiency of the Evidence
               ___________________________

                    On appeal, Catucci  claims that there  was insufficient

          evidence  that he  knew the  two PCB-laden transformers  would be

          disposed  of  illegally, an  essential  element  in each  offense

          charged.   See 15  U.S.C.   2615(b)  (establishing criminal sanc-
                     ___

          tions for  knowingly or  willfully violating EPA  dumping regula-
                               __

          tions); 42  U.S.C.    9603(b)  (establishing  criminal  sanctions

          against any  person for failing to  notify appropriate government

          agency of release "as soon as he has knowledge of such release");

          United States v. Buckley, 934 F.2d 84, 89 (6th Cir. 1991); United
          _____________    _______                                   ______

          States v. Pacific  Hide &  Fur Depot, Inc.,  768 F.2d 1096,  1098
          ______    ________________________________

          (9th  Cir. 1985) (Kennedy  J.) (  2615);   United States v. Ward,
                                                     _____________    ____

          676 F.2d  94, 97 (4th  Cir.) (same), cert.  denied, 459 U.S.  835
                                               _____  ______

          (1982).  

                    Under the established standard of review set out in the

          margin,1  we find  ample evidence to  support the  essential jury
                              
          ____________________

               1    We assess the sufficiency  of the evidence as  a whole,
                    including all reasonable inferences,  in the light most
                    favorable  to the  verdict, with  a  view to  whether a
                    rational trier  of fact could have  found the defendant

                                          5
                                          5

          findings that Catucci knew Almeida and Arcaro would dump the PCBs

          unlawfully,  and that he did not provide timely notice to govern-

          mental authorities.  

                    First, the evidence at trial demonstrated  that Catucci

          had  been  informed, by  his  plant  superintendent, that  lawful

          disposal of each PCB-laden  transformer would cost between $8,000

          and $10,000, since EPA regulations required that they be inciner-

          ated.   As Almeida and Arcaro  were willing to remove  the trans-

          formers  in return for the  salvage value of  their copper coils,

          the jury assuredly could  infer that Catucci was well  aware that

          the two PCB-laden  transformers were not going  to be incinerated

             at a total minimum cost  of $16,000    by volunteers who would

          receive  only their scrap value in return.   See United States v.
                                                       ___ _____________

          Tejeda, 974 F.2d 210, 213 (1st Cir. 1992) (noting that jurors may
          ______

          evaluate evidence in light of "their experience as to the natural

          inclinations  of human  beings").   Second, Catucci  subsequently

          misrepresented  that  the  transformers  had been  stolen,  which

          permitted the jury to  infer consciousness of guilt.   See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States  v. Passos-Paternina,  918 F.2d 979,  985 (1st  Cir. 1990)
          ______     ________________

          (jury  may  construe knowingly  false  statement  as evidence  of

          consciousness of  guilt), cert. denied,  499 U.S. 982,  and cert.
                                    _____ ______                      _____
                              
          ____________________

                    guilty  beyond a  reasonable doubt.   We  do not  weigh
                    witness credibility, but resolve all credibility issues
                    in  favor of the verdict.  The evidence may be entirely
                    circumstantial, and  need not exclude  every reasonable
                    hypothesis of  innocence; that is, the  fact finder may
                    decide  among  reasonable interpretations  of  the evi-
                    dence.

          United States v. Hahn, 17 F.3d 502, 506 (1st Cir. 1994).
          _____________    ____

                                          6
                                          6

          denied, 501 U.S. 1210 (1991).  
          ______

                                          7
                                          7

          B.   Adjustment for Repetitive Discharge
          B.   Adjustment for Repetitive Discharge
               ___________________________________

                    Catucci  assigns error  in  the  net four-level  upward

          adjustment  the  sentencing court  made  pursuant  to U.S.S.G.   

          2Q1.2(b)(1)(A), which states:

                    If the  offense resulted in  an ongoing, con-
                    tinuous, or repetitive discharge,  release or
                    emission of a hazardous or toxic substance or
                    pesticide into the environment, increase by 6
                    levels.

                    Catucci argues  that it was mere  happenstance that the

          two PCB-laden transformers were dumped on different days.  Conse-

          quently, 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.   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.   2Q1.2, comment. (n.5).  

                    U.S.S.G.   2Q1.2(b)(1)(A)  is triggered if  the offense

          resulted  in  an  ongoing, continuous  or  repetitive  discharge.
          ________  __

                              
          ____________________

               2Guideline  interpretations are  reviewed  de novo,  whereas
                                                          __ ____
          relevant factual findings are reviewed  for clear error and their
          application under the guideline  is accorded due deference.   See
                                                                        ___
          United  States v.  Ovalle-Marquez,  36 F.3d  212,  221 (1st  Cir.
          ______________     ______________
          1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 947, and cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.
                 _____ ______                      _____ ______
          1322 (1995).  

                                          8
                                          8

          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    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   2Q1.3(b)(1)(A)  for repeti-

          tive discharge triggered by establishing second discharge).  

          C.   Aberrant Behavior
          C.   Aberrant Behavior
               _________________

                    Catucci  urges a  remand  for resentencing  because the

          district court allegedly  misapprehended its authority  to depart

          downward on the ground  that these offenses constituted "aberrant

          behavior."   See United States  v. Russell, 870  F.2d 18, 20 (1st
                       ___ _____________     _______

          Cir. 1989)  (adverting to guideline relating  to "aberrant behav-

          ior" departures). 

                    At sentencing, the  district court repeatedly indicated

          its readiness  to allow  a  principled downward  departure.   Yet

          despite  the district  court's specific  invitation ("Do  you see

          anything . . . which would authorize my departure in this case in

          a justifiable and reasonable  manner?") and its apparent displea-

          sure at having to impose  a prison sentence on a person  "who may

          have had  an aberration," no  "aberrant behavior" claim  was pre-

          sented  to the district court.   In these  stark circumstances, a

          finding of waiver is  virtually compelled.  Cf. United  States v.
                                                      ___ ______________

                                          9
                                          9

          Montoya,  967 F.2d  1, 2  (1st Cir.  1992) (sentencing  claim not
          _______

          presented to district court deemed  waived), cert. denied, 113 S.
                                                       _____ ______

          Ct. 507 (1992); United States v. Dietz, 950 F.2d 50, 55 (1st Cir.
                          _____________    _____

          1991);  United States v. Rosalez-Cortez,  19 F.3d 1210, 1220 (7th
                  _____________    ______________

          Cir.  1994) (failure to  raise "aberrant behavior"  claim in dis-

          trict court results in waiver).3

          D.   Criminal Rule 32
          D.   Criminal Rule 32
               ________________

                    Catucci contends that resentencing is necessary because

          the district court failed to  comply with Rule 32(c)(3)(D), which

          provides  that,  as to  any  alleged "factual  inaccuracy  in the

          presentence investigation report," the district court is to "make

          (i) a finding  as to the allegation or  (ii) a determination that

          no such finding is necessary because the matter controverted will

          not be taken into account in sentencing."   A "written record" of

          the sentencing  court's findings is  required.  United  States v.
                                                          ______________

          Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 620 (1st Cir. 1993).  
          ______
                              
          ____________________

               3Even assuming,  arguendo, that  the present claim  had been
                                ________
          preserved, we note that six  circuits have determined that "aber-
          rant behavior"  is  not established  unless  the defendant  is  a
          first-time offender and the crime was "a spontaneous and seeming-
          ly  thoughtless act  rather  than one  which  was the  result  of
          substantial planning."   United  States v.  Carey, 895  F.2d 318,
                                   ______________     _____
          324-25 (7th Cir.  1990). See  United States  v. Premachandra,  32
                                   ___  _____________     ____________
          F.3d 346, 349  (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Duerson, 25 F.3d
                                          _____________    _______
          376, 380 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Marcello, 13 F.3d 752,
                                    _____________    ________
          761 (3d Cir.  1994); United States v.  Williams, 974 F.2d 25,  26
                               _____________     ________
          (5th Cir. 1992),  cert. denied,  113 S. Ct.  1320 (1993);  United
                            _____ ______                             ______
          States v.  Glick, 946 F.2d 335,  338 (4th Cir. 1991).   The Ninth
          ______     _____
          and Tenth Circuits apply a somewhat different test, permitting  a
          downward  departure for  "aberrant behavior"  based on  a finding
          that the  offense did  not comport  with the  defendant's "normal
          character . . . [and] is a complete shock and  out of character."
          United States v.  Tsosie, 14  F.3d 1438, 1441  (10th Cir.  1994);
          _____________     ______
          United  States v. Fairless, 975 F.2d 664, 666-67 (9th Cir. 1992).
          ______________    ________
          In all events,given the circumstances we discern no plain error. 

                                          10
                                          10

                    Catucci  argues that  the  sentencing  court failed  to

          address the following claim that he be allowed a downward adjust-

          ment as a "minor or minimal" participant:  

                    .  . .  you could  make a  downward departure
                    based upon a  role as a minor  in the offense
                    or . . .  a minimal role in that  offense and
                    in --  in the whole case, if  you believe the
                    jury's decision, they  were told that  I gave
                    permission to take the transformers.

                    No one ever said that I told them  to dispose
                    of the  transformers or I gave  permission to
                    dump the transformers.  They said they allege
                    that they asked me for permission to take the
                    copper  from the transformers  and that's the
                    worst of the testimony from that perspective,
                    so I just raise that issue.

          Later in his  allocution, after  Catucci had  asserted his  inno-

          cence, the district  court cautioned that it could  not disregard

          the  jury  verdicts.4   The  district  court ruling  rejecting  a

          downward adjustment  under U.S.S.G.   3B1.2 is  not challenged on

          appeal. 

                    Catucci's claimed entitlement to a downward "departure"

          under U.S.S.G.    3B1.2, notwithstanding the central jury finding

          that  he knowingly allowed Arcaro  and Almeida to  dispose of the

          transformers, did not challenge any factual statement in the pre-
                        ___ ___ _________ ___ _______ _________

          sentence report, but  amounted instead to  an attempt to  dispute

          the legal import of the jury verdicts.  Absent a claim of factual

          inaccuracy, the Rule 32(c)(3)(D) requirement simply is not impli-
                              
          ____________________

               4A  role-in-the-offense  determination   presents  a   mixed
          question of law  and fact, United States v. Carrozza,  4 F.3d 70,
                                     _____________    ________
          89 (1st Cir. 1993), cert.  denied, 114 S. Ct. 1644 (1994),  which
                              _____  ______
          we  review  only for  clear error,  by  reason of  its fact-bound
          nature, United States v. Rodriguez Alvarado, 985 F.2d 15, 19 (1st
                  _____________    __________________
          Cir. 1993).  

                                          11
                                          11

          cated.  United States v. Pellerito, 918 F.2d 999, 1003 (1st  Cir.
                  _____________    _________

          1990) (Rule 32(c)(3)(D)  not triggered by claim  of legal error);

          United States v. Reese, 998 F.2d 1275, 1285 (5th Cir. 1993) (Rule
          _____________    _____

          32(c)(3)(D)  not triggered by claim of error in assigning role in

          offense).5 

                                         III
                                         III

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION
                                      __________

                    For the  foregoing reasons, the  judgment of conviction

          and sentence is affirmed. 

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                              
          ____________________

               5United States  v. Rosado-Ubiera,  947 F.2d 644,  645-46 (2d
                _____________     _____________
          Cir. 1991), is not to the contrary.  There the district court had
          refused  to resolve both a factual dispute, as to the defendant's
          conduct, and the defendant's role in the offense. 

                                          12
                                          12