UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                        No. 99-4515

DONALD HOFFMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                        No. 99-4516

RODNEY HOFFMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                        No. 99-4517

CURTIS HOFFMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-190)

Submitted: March 10, 2000

Decided: March 27, 2000

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Brian J. Kornbrath, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
West Virginia; Derrick W. Lefler, Princeton, West Virginia; Gregory
M. Courtright, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Rebecca A.
Betts, United States Attorney, Susan M. Arnold, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Donald Hoffman pled guilty to an information charging him with
negligent violation of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1)(A)
(1994). Rodney Hoffman and Curtis Hoffman pled guilty to know-
ingly violating the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2)(A)
(1994). The Hoffmans raise one issue in these consolidated appeals.
They contend that the district court erred by not requiring a showing
of "actual environmental contamination" before imposing a six-level
enhancement to the base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guide-
lines Manual § 2Q1.2(b)(1)(A) (1998). Under USSG § 2Q1.2(b)
(1)(A), "[i]f the offense resulted in an ongoing, continuous, or repeti-
tive discharge, release, or emission of a hazardous or toxic substance
or pesticide into the environment, increase by 6 levels." The commen-
tary to USSG § 2Q1.2 states: "[s]ubsection (b)(1) assumes a discharge
or emission into the environment resulting in actual environmental
contamination." USSG § 2Q1.2, comment. (n.5). Finding no revers-
ible error, we affirm.

In reviewing an application of the sentencing guidelines, a district
court's legal determinations are reviewed de novo and its factual

                    2
determinations are reviewed for clear error. See United States v.
Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 503 (4th Cir. 1996).

The facts in this case are similar to United States v. Goldfaden, 959
F.2d 1324, 1331 (5th Cir. 1992). There, the defendant was convicted
of dumping hazardous and industrial waste into the Dallas, Texas,
sewer system. The court found that environmental contamination was
a given. See id. Here, the Hoffmans engaged in a continuous practice
of discharging contaminated waste water into the local sewer system.
We find that under these facts, environmental damage can be
assumed. See also United States v. Van Loben Sels, 198 F.3d 1161,
1165-66 (9th Cir. 1999) (discharging contaminated waste water into
the sewer system was sufficient to show environmental damage);
United States v. Cunningham, 194 F.3d 1186, 1202 (11th Cir. 1999)
("The government does not have to prove actual environmental con-
tamination in order for the enhancement to apply."); United States v.
Liebman, 40 F.3d 544, 551 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[W]hen a hazardous or
toxic substance is discharged into the environment, it will be assumed
that contamination of that environment ordinarily ensues.").

Accordingly, because the Hoffmans engaged in the continuous dis-
charge of contaminated waste water into the sewer system, the six-
level enhancement was appropriate. We affirm the Hoffmans' convic-
tions and sentences. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
