United States v. Pratheepan Thavaraja, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1226

Background

Defendant Pratheepan, a Sri Lankan national, was the LTTE's principal procurement officer (2002–2006) and admitted purchasing over $20 million in military-grade weapons and relaying messages in a scheme to bribe U.S. State Department officials.
He pled guilty (2009) to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and conspiracy to bribe public officials; extradited to the U.S. in 2007 and detained ~6 years pre-sentence.
District court applied Guidelines (total offense level 37, CHC VI via §3A1.4), producing a Guidelines range well above statutory maximums; statutory maximum aggregate exposure was 240 months.
The district judge imposed a substantial downward variance: 108 months on the material-support count, concurrent with 60 months on the bribery count (total 108 months).
The court relied on mitigating factors: lack of prior criminal record, long pretrial detention, model behavior in custody, acceptance of responsibility, humanitarian/political motivations tied to an ongoing civil war with documented abuses on both sides, and likely post‑release deportation and risk of reprisal.
The Government appealed only the substantive reasonableness of the below-Guidelines sentence; the Second Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 108‑month sentence (≈>50% below Guidelines) was substantively unreasonable	Sentence is unreasonably low given the gravity: procurement of weapons for a designated terrorist org and large-scale lethal support	Variance justified by defendant's motives, personal history, long pretrial detention, model conduct, and deportation risk	Affirmed: sentence within range of permissible decisions under deferential review
Whether district court erred by considering that defendant posed no "direct threat" to the U.S.	Court should not mitigate because crime targeted terrorism even if not aimed at U.S. targets	Court may consider degree of harm to U.S. and individual role when fashioning sentence	No error: court properly weighed degree of harm and recognized statutory scope of crime
Whether court improperly mitigated based on sympathetic view of LTTE/goals	Court improperly treated LTTE less blameworthy than other terrorist orgs	Court sought to assess defendant's motivation and the conflict context, not to excuse terrorism	No error: motivation and context are relevant to moral culpability and sentencing
Whether family circumstances and deportation prospect were improper reasons for variance	Family ties and deportation prospects are not ordinarily valid bases for downward departures	§3553(a) permits considering history and characteristics; post‑Booker advisory regime allows broader consideration	No error: court may consider these factors in individualized §3553(a) analysis

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review and that Guidelines are a starting point)
Broxmeyer v. United States, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses particularly deferential substantive reasonableness review)
Cavera v. United States, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (explains appellate review limits and individualized sentencing under §3553(a))
Rigas v. United States, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (describes boundaries of substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2009) (notes that larger variances require greater justification)
United States v. Amawi, 695 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholds substantial below‑Guidelines sentences in terrorist‑related cases)
United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2011) (reversed an unreasonably low sentence where district court reduced sentence because crimes did not target the U.S.)
United States v. Wills, 476 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2007) (held deportation generally should not be treated as additional punishment)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (allows district courts wide discretion to vary from Guidelines in sentencing)