United States v. Lloyd B. Lockwood
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19595
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Lockwood placed a pipe bomb (not connected to a power source and incapable of detonation) in his ex-girlfriend’s brother’s mailbox, then called police claiming there was a bomb and a plan to blow up his office; jury convicted him of possession of a destructive device after he stipulated the device qualified as such.
- At initial sentencing the district court imposed the statutory maximum 120-month term despite a Guidelines range of 33–41 months; this court vacated that sentence for inadequate explanation (Lockwood I).
- On remand the district court again sentenced Lockwood to 120 months and issued a detailed sentencing order describing testimony from his ex-wife and sister-in-law about threats, violent conduct while on pretrial release, and a prior aggravated-arson conviction.
- The district court found Lockwood’s Guidelines criminal-history category I underrepresented his actual conduct, characterized him as a sociopath unlikely to be rehabilitated, and emphasized the need to incapacitate him.
- Lockwood appealed, arguing procedural error (crediting biased/inconsistent witnesses, improperly treating the bomb as capable of harm, overreliance on old criminal history, and failure to address mitigation) and that the statutory-maximum sentence was substantively unreasonable and risked unwarranted disparities.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it held the district court did not commit procedural error (credibility findings not clearly erroneous; court knew the bomb was inoperable; criminal-history underrepresentation adequately explained; mitigation arguments addressed) and did not abuse its discretion substantively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of witness testimony | Jarvis and Sexton were biased/inconsistent; court erred in crediting them | District court reasonably credited in-court testimony; credibility is for the court | Court upheld credibility findings; not clearly erroneous |
| Bomb’s dangerousness | Sentencing relied on inference that bomb could cause harm | Court knew bomb was not attached to energy source; stray remark harmless | Court treated the remark as harmless and not relied upon; no clear-error fact finding |
| Reliance on criminal history for upward departure | Court again overemphasized stale convictions to justify large upward variance | Court explained Guidelines underrepresented Lockwood’s conduct and likened the situation to McIntyre-type underrepresentation | Court found explanation adequate; upward departure justified by underrepresentation and defendant’s dangerousness |
| Substantive reasonableness / unwarranted disparities | Statutory-maximum sentence is excessive and creates disparities with more culpable offenders | District court gave a detailed §3553(a) explanation focused on violence propensity and lack of remorse; careful consideration of Guidelines | Court affirmed as substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. United States, 431 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir.) (witness credibility determinations rarely clear error)
- United States v. Blalock, 321 F.3d 686 (7th Cir.) (trial-court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (requirements for explaining variances from Guidelines)
- United States v. McIntyre, 531 F.3d 481 (7th Cir.) (upward departure justified where Guidelines underrepresent defendant’s criminal history)
- United States v. Kirkpatrick, 589 F.3d 414 (7th Cir.) (significant upward departures require careful explanation)
- United States v. Snyder, 635 F.3d 956 (7th Cir.) (district court must consider Guidelines range to guard against unwarranted disparities)