The moral of the story in United States v. Spatig, --- F.3d ---, No. 15-30322 (9th Cir. 2017), is don't store lots of paint in your yard.
The defendant was charged with, and convicted of, violating § 6928(d)(2)(A), which prohibits, “knowingly
treat[ing], stor[ing], or dispos[ing] of any hazardous waste . . . without a permit.”
In affirming the defendant's conviction, the Court held the statute defines a crime of general intent. Thus, the district court properly excluded the defendant's diminished capacity evidence. (Diminished capacity generally cannot be raised as a defense to a general intent crime).
The Court also affirmed a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Q1.2(b)(3) for
cleanup that required a substantial expenditure, due to the $498,562 cost. It did not "not purport to establish a bright-line rule
between substantial and insubstantial expenditures, [but] note[d] that our sister circuits have determined that expenditures of
$200,000 or less count as 'substantial.'"
