United States v. Ressam, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9255

Ressam, an Algerian national, planned to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve 1999 and was arrested with bomb components after arriving in the U.S. by ferry; he was convicted by a jury on nine counts, with a Guideline imprisonment range of 65 years to life; the district court sentenced him to 22 years plus five years of supervised release; Ressam entered into a cooperation agreement with the government for substantial assistance in exchange for potential downward departure under 5K1.1, which the government sought to use; Ressam cooperated for about two years but then stopped, recanted testimony, and cooperations led to the dismissal of two prosecutions; after initial sentencing in 2005, the case was remanded following higher court decisions, and the resentencing occurred in 2008 with Ressam recanting further and the district court again imposing 22 years; the government appealed as substantively unreasonable, and the panel en banc vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ressam's 22-year sentence is substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).	Government contends the sentence reflects careful 3553(a) balancing given serious terrorism offenses and substantial cooperation.	Ressam argues the district court abused discretion by overvaluing cooperation and undervaluing the seriousness of the offenses.	No; sentence is substantively unreasonable and vacated for remand.
Whether the district court properly weighed Ressam's cooperation under §5K1.1 in setting the sentence.	Government argues the cooperation had substantial weight and justified downward variance.	Ressam contends the court erred by overvaluing cooperation and ignoring its later repudiation.	Abused discretion by misweighing cooperation and not adequately reflecting its limited value given recantations.
Whether the district court erred by giving favorable consideration to Ressam's life history and personal characteristics.	Government supports considering mitigating personal factors alongside §3553(a).	Ressam argues such factors were improperly weighed in light of his terrorist conduct.	Error; court overstated favorable factors and failed to justify a large variance.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of substantive reasonableness; advisory Guidelines support variance analysis)
Carty v. United States, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc; guidelines kept in mind; factors 3553(a) must guide variance)
Hinkson v. United States, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; two-part test for abuse of discretion (correct legal rule and illogical/implausible findings))
Amezcua-Vasquez v. United States, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009) (vacated within-range sentence when disproportionate due to other factors)
Rigas v. United States, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive review guidance; deferential yet non-rubber-stamp review)
Jayyousi v. United States, 657 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2011) (disparate treatment in terrorism sentencing; importance of proper comparisons)