United States v. Mark Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287

Background

In 2006 Mark Sawyer and four others formed A&E Salvage to demolish and salvage materials from a 300-acre former Liberty Fibers plant in Tennessee; the site contained widespread regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM).
A&E Salvage knowingly failed to follow NESHAP asbestos handling rules (e.g., inadequate wetting, lack of respirators/protective suits); EPA intervened, issued orders, and ultimately cleaned the site under CERCLA at a total cost exceeding $16 million.
Sawyer pleaded guilty in 2014 to one count of conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act (18 U.S.C. § 371); he waived appeal rights for sentences within the Guidelines range; the advisory range exceeded the statutory maximum so he received the 60‑month statutory maximum.
The government sought mandatory restitution under the MVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3663A) for EPA cleanup costs; it submitted a SCORPIOS cost spreadsheet and presented EPA testimony; the district court credited the evidence and ordered Sawyer and co-defendants jointly and severally to pay $10,388,576.71.
Sawyer appealed the sentence (waiver limited review) and the restitution order, contesting (1) whether restitution under § 3663A was mandatory and whether the EPA qualified as a ‘‘victim’’ of an offense against property, (2) causation/amount of EPA losses, (3) whether factual findings for restitution required a jury, and (4) procedural sufficiency/notice of the government’s cost evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sawyer may appeal substantive reasonableness of 60‑month sentence	Sawyer: sentence substantively unreasonable given no prior record and co‑defendants got lesser terms	Government: appeal waiver bars review of sentence within Guidelines range	Appeal waiver valid; court declines to review sentence (appeal precluded)
Whether restitution was mandatory under MVRA and whether EPA is a victim of an "offense against property"	Sawyer: EPA lacked possessory interest in land so cannot be a victim for § 3663A; MVRA’s text implies victim must own property	Government: contamination offenses are offenses against property; agencies that incur cleanup costs can be victims even without possessory interest	MVRA applies; offense is an offense against property and EPA is an identifiable victim entitled to mandatory restitution
Whether government proved causation and amount of EPA losses by preponderance	Sawyer: SCORPIOS summary insufficient; some costs predated A&E activities; Paroline limits restitution to defendant’s relative role	Government: SCORPIOS plus EPA witness testimony and abundant documentary evidence establish direct/proximate causation; conspiracy liability permits joint and several restitution	Amount established with sufficient indicia of reliability; joint and several liability permissible for conspiracy; district court did not abuse discretion (court reduced $300,000 for non‑asbestos cleanup)
Whether restitution fact‑finding required jury or violated procedural/notice rules	Sawyer: Apprendi/Southern Union require jury; PSR lacked sufficient restitution details; late disclosure deprived due process	Government: restitution statutes lack defined statutory maximum so Apprendi inapplicable per Sosebee/Churn; documents disclosed before hearing and opportunity to cross‑examine and object existed	No jury required; procedural disclosures and opportunities were adequate; district court properly exercised discretion

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Quillen, 335 F.3d 219 (3d Cir.) (clean‑up costs recoverable under restitution statutes)
United States v. Phillips, 367 F.3d 846 (9th Cir.) (EPA CERCLA cleanup costs may be recoverable as restitution when directly caused)
United States v. Overholt, 307 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir.) (government agency’s financial losses from environmental cleanup may be restitutionable)
United States v. Brock‑Davis, 504 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.) (MVRA restitution for meth lab remediation to motel owner)
Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (restitution should reflect defendant’s relative causal role in certain contexts)
United States v. Elson, 577 F.3d 713 (6th Cir.) (MVRA/conspiracy restitution principles)
United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451 (6th Cir.) (Apprendi does not apply to MVRA restitution)
United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768 (6th Cir.) (confirms Sosebee post‑Southern Union)