United States v. John Gammell
932 F.3d 1175
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- John Gammell pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to damage protected computers (DDoS attacks) and two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms; district court sentenced him to 60 months (conspiracy) and 180 months (felon-in-possession, concurrent) and ordered $955,656.77 restitution to 14 victims.
- Between 2015–2017 Gammell launched prolonged DDoS campaigns against ~40 entities (former employers, competitors, courts, law enforcement), concealed his identity, used third-party services and crypto payments, and sometimes taunted victims.
- At sentencing the court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) mandatory minimum (15 years) after identifying three prior Minnesota convictions as ACCA violent-felony predicates: two aggravated robberies (1981) and an aiding-and-abetting second-degree burglary (1984).
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on restitution and awarded nearly $956k under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), treating mitigation/repair and related investigation/mitigation expenses as compensable property damage remediation costs.
- Gammell appealed, challenging (1) his ACCA classification—arguing the priors did not qualify—and (2) the restitution award—arguing investigative costs, windfalls, and insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gammell’s prior convictions qualify as ACCA violent-felony predicates | Aggravated robbery convictions and the aiding-and-abetting burglary conviction should not count as ACCA predicates | Prior decisions establish Minnesota aggravated robbery and burglary (including convictions based on accomplice liability) are violent felonies under ACCA | Affirmed: aggravated robbery and aiding/abetting burglary qualify as ACCA predicates; ACCA sentence proper |
| Whether restitution award under MVRA was improper because it included voluntary investigative costs or gave victims a windfall | Lagos bars recovery for voluntary investigative costs; mitigation/infrastructure expenses are speculative and produce a windfall; evidence insufficient | Restitution ordered under §3663A(b)(1) for property damage/repair; mitigation and remediation expenses are repair/cleanup costs causally related to DDoS damage; evidentiary record (declarations, invoices, testimony) sufficient | Affirmed: district court properly awarded $955,656.77 as restitution tied to property repair/cleanup; Lagos inapplicable; evidence adequate |
| Whether Minnesota aiding-and-abetting law is categorically broader than generic aiding-and-abetting (raised in concurrence) | (Gammell) Minnesota doctrine may extend liability for mere presence or conflate conspiracy and accomplice liability, making it overbroad | (Government) Minnesota aiding-and-abetting aligns with generic federal principles; presence must be intended to aid; statutory language does not show overbreadth | Judgment affirmed; concurrence would analyze statute more deeply but agrees conviction qualifies as ACCA predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Libby, 880 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir.) (aggravated robbery under Minnesota law is a violent felony under ACCA)
- United States v. Pettis, 888 F.3d 962 (8th Cir.) (state case law supports that Minnesota robbery involves violent force for ACCA)
- United States v. Salean, 583 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir.) (aiding-and-abetting convictions count as substantive offenses for ACCA purposes)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (examining whether a state’s aiding-and-abetting definition is unusually broad)
- Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018) (limits restitution for voluntary investigative costs under a different MVRA subsection)
- United States v. Frazier, 651 F.3d 899 (8th Cir.) (standards for restitution under MVRA)
- United States v. Carpenter, 841 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir.) (district court’s loss estimation receives deference)