## Facts

- Ahmed Ressam entered the United States from Canada in December 1999 with explosives and bomb components in a rental car, intending to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year’s Eve 1999–2000.
- A jury convicted Ressam on nine counts, including terrorism-related conspiracy, explosives offenses, and immigration-fraud offenses.
- The district court calculated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 65 years to life; neither party challenged the calculation.
- Ressam entered a cooperation agreement under which the government contemplated a substantial-assistance motion and sought a sentence of at least 27 years conditioned on continued cooperation.
- Ressam initially cooperated, contributing to convictions in two terrorism cases, but later stopped cooperating and partially recanted, contributing to the failure of two additional terrorism prosecutions.
- On remand after an earlier appeal, the district court again imposed a 22-year prison term (plus five years’ supervised release), far below the Guidelines range.
- The government appealed the resentencing as substantively unreasonable.

## Issues

1. Whether a 22-year below-Guidelines sentence for serious terrorism-related offenses, with an advisory range of 65 years to life, was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the abuse-of-discretion standard.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit vacated the 22-year sentence as substantively unreasonable.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by giving insufficient weight to the seriousness of the terrorism offenses and to deterrence and protection of the public.
- The court concluded the district court overstated the mitigating effect of Ressam’s cooperation without adequately accounting for his later refusal to cooperate and partial recantation.
- The court remanded for resentencing before a different district judge.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The Sentencing Guidelines remain the starting point and benchmark; a major variance requires more compelling justification than a minor variance.
- In evaluating § 3553(a), sentencing courts must give meaningful weight to the seriousness of terrorism offenses, the need for deterrence, protection of the public, and promotion of respect for law.
- Cooperation may mitigate punishment, but its weight may be reduced where cooperation later breaks down or includes withdrawal or recantation with adverse effects on prosecutions.
- An appellate court may order reassignment on remand where reassignment is necessary to ensure resentencing consistent with the appellate mandate.

## Conclusion

The en banc Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s repeated imposition of a 22-year sentence for a planned airport bombing, despite an unchallenged 65-years-to-life Guidelines range, failed to justify the extreme downward variance under § 3553(a), so the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing before a different judge.


United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)