8 ms·

20 years is the maximum, not what he'll get. Skimming the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, I make it: * A base level of 14 for an obstruction of justice charge (

20 years is the maximum, not what he'll get. Skimming the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, I make it: * A base level of 14 for an obstruction of justice charge (§2J1.2) * -2 for acceptance of responsibility (§3E1.1) Assuming no previous criminal history, that's a guideline sentence of 10-16 months. If he can get it down one more point to a level 11 sentence, that's a Zone B sentence and can be entirely served on probation. The DoJ press release is at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-man-who-deliberately-crashed-airplane-youtube-video-admits https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-ma..., but the plea agreement isn't available (yet), which would indicate if they've agreed on an offence level and any adjustments. EDIT: Found the plea agreement; see comment in thread

tonetheman 3y ago
[dead]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> The DoJ press release is at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-ma… https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-ma..., but the plea agreement isn’t available (yet), which would indicate if they’ve agreed on an offence level and any adjustments. Note, however, that even if an agreement was reached that such an agreement is an agreement on what to present to the court; the court may not be bound, in accepting the plea agreement, to accept, in sentencing, the recommended offense level, or the recommend adjustments, or even to stick to the guidelines, depending on the exact form of the agreement. [EDIT: Revised based on a correction in the response comment].
- waiwai933 3y ago
  I believe - and to be honest the Sentencing Guidelines are just on the boundary of my wheelhouse, but plea agreements are well outside - that Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a plea agreement that binds the court, so depends on the nature of the exact plea agreement. (see also §6B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines)
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    You are correct and I have corrected the posts that suggested otherwise.
tptacek 3y ago
I think you can go higher here. It's 18 US 1519; you might bump it with: * Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage * Substantial interference with administration of justice * Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation Minus the guilty plea, he could be looking 4-5 years.
- waiwai933 3y ago
  > Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage The enhancement is doing so "in order to obstruct the administration of justice" -- I don't think that any of the actual dangerous actions were done to obstruct. > Substantial interference with administration of justice That's defined as a "premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources." I think the first two don't fit the factual picture that we're aware of; the last _could_ but I think it unlikely that there was that much conduct that was beyond the obstruction charge that caused this. > Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation Possibly - the SG don't go into much detail about what they mean by this; however, I would be surprised if this enhancement applied (but less so than the other two).
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Yeah, you're probably right. The prosecutor press release makes a point of talking about his experience as a pilot and a skydiver, so "special skills" might apply. But the big-ticket accelerator is (b)(1)(A), and I think you're right that it can't apply to him exfiltrating and cutting up his own airplane.
    - waiwai933 3y ago
      Turns out yes to the extensive planning enhancement, as well as an aggravated role enhancement. But no to the harm/substantial interference/special skills enhancements. Details in uncle/aunt comment (is that a term?) now that I've found the plea agreement.
idlewords 3y ago
I can't imagine the government agreeing to a plea where this guy does not spend at least symbolic time in the pokey. The offense was too obnoxious and high profile to let him walk.
- nieve 3y ago
  It's not just obnoxious, people hike out there regularly he could have hit and he could easily have started a significant fire in a vulnerable environment. He endangered others for a sponsorship deal and then engaged in a conspiracy to hide it.
  - echelon 3y ago
    I'm not going to lie - I find the video utterly fascinating and I think the world is a better and more interesting place now that it exists. It's a fascinating path permutation of the human condition / state space traversal. I do think what he did was stupid and brazen and that he should be punished. The punishment should be dealt in such a way that nobody else attempts this again. I'm also glad nobody was hurt (the probability of that was extremely low). But all of that said, I'm very glad that this video and anecdote now exist. It's incredibly fascinating. Nobody was hurt, and it's such a novel thing. If you haven't seen the video, you need to see it.
    - Maursault 3y ago
      > If you haven't seen the video, you need to see it. I disagree entirely. It lacked novelty. The entire thing felt as contrived as an amateur stunt, which is what it was, and little more: a precious snowflake and overt narcissist desperate for attention.
      - testfoobar 3y ago
        I agree with you - it is just not interesting. It is in the same vein as many corporate promo videos. Here is a Red Bull video of someone riding a BMX bike in a bowl suspended underneath a hot balloon at 2000ft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mnizjZat3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mnizjZat3Q The point of these outrageous videos is to get attention and promote a brand. Does it really work on their target market: jaded young adults? Also, I can't tell if any of these videos are real anymore. I don't care because the novelty, the shock, the wow factor wore off years ago. So someone jumped out of a crashing plane. Whatever. Could be fake. Could be real. Definitely not interesting anymore.
waiwai933 3y ago
Found the plea agreement: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.884169/gov.uscourts.cacd.884169.6.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.88... Agreed to (page 10): * Base level of 14 for obstruction of justice * +2 for the extensive planning enhancement (b)(3)(B)/(C) No agreement w.r.t: * Criminal history (which I believe is fairly standard) * +2 for aggravated role - §3B1.1(c). * Going outside the guidelines ~ I'm surprised there's no acceptance of responsibility reduction reserved by the defendant; feels like the DoJ were pressing reasonably hard on this one (tbf, seems entirely reasonable given the conduct here) ~ Correction: this is agreed on p. 2/3 If the court sentences to 18-24 months (p. 12), both parties have waived right to appeal. (And aligns with the minimum level of 15 on p. 3)
- throwanem 3y ago
  Good grief, it's like something out of a role-playing game.
  - coolhand2120 3y ago
    If during the sentencing hearing someone casts aid I believe he will get -1d4 months.
  - namaria 3y ago
    The greatest role playing game of all: society
- sfmike 3y ago
  is there a video or a simple follow through how one would be able to practically search through city/state/federal court cases with your speed and precision?
  - waiwai933 3y ago
    I'm afraid I'm not aware of any how-to guide. City/County/State tend to be harder; federal court dockets are all uploaded to PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ https://pacer.uscourts.gov/) which has fairly good search options, though be advised that there's a usage charge. Lots of stuff then gets uploaded to RECAP (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/ https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/), but it is inherently less complete than PACER, though if you do start using PACER, I strongly recommend installing the RECAP browser extension as that will upload any documents you view to RECAP, as well as advise you when a copy is already available on RECAP. For what it's worth, this one was: 1. Find the DoJ press release (I think this was just Google search for a few keywords) 2. Accidentally notice that the press release said that the plea agreement had been filed in court 3. Open the court's PACER instance, and search for the defendant's name 4. Open the docket for the case, and download the plea agreement 5. Skim through (ignoring the factual background since I was looking for the sentencing information)
thaumasiotes 3y ago
There's no charge other than obstruction of justice? That's one of those crimes that shouldn't be valid at all without an actual crime in the background. If no crime other than obstruction of justice was committed, how can justice have been obstructed?
- qingcharles 3y ago
  You make an excellent point. When I was in jail there were many people who were charged only with obstruction of justice or resisting arrest. Often what would happen is law enforcement would try to arrest someone or search their property and the suspect would interfere with the process. Later, whatever caused the police to take action in the first place was nullified, either by reason of being illegal or having no factual basis, but the suspect was now still in jail for potentially years based on their (possibly) rightful action in trying to stop the police from whatever they were not supposed to be doing. Sometimes it can just be a lose/lose scenario once you come to the attention of law enforcement. If at all possible, never put yourself in a situation, or associate with those who are going to bring heat upon you from the police.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

tonetheman 3y ago

[dead]

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The DoJ press release is at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-ma… https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-ma..., but the plea agreement isn’t available (yet), which would indicate if they’ve agreed on an offence level and any adjustments. Note, however, that even if an agreement was reached that such an agreement is an agreement on what to present to the court; the court may not be bound, in accepting the plea agreement, to accept, in sentencing, the recommended offense level, or the recommend adjustments, or even to stick to the guidelines, depending on the exact form of the agreement. [EDIT: Revised based on a correction in the response comment].

waiwai933 3y ago
I believe - and to be honest the Sentencing Guidelines are just on the boundary of my wheelhouse, but plea agreements are well outside - that Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a plea agreement that binds the court, so depends on the nature of the exact plea agreement. (see also §6B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines)
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  You are correct and I have corrected the posts that suggested otherwise.

tptacek 3y ago

I think you can go higher here. It's 18 US 1519; you might bump it with: * Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage * Substantial interference with administration of justice * Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation Minus the guilty plea, he could be looking 4-5 years.

waiwai933 3y ago
> Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage The enhancement is doing so "in order to obstruct the administration of justice" -- I don't think that any of the actual dangerous actions were done to obstruct. > Substantial interference with administration of justice That's defined as a "premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources." I think the first two don't fit the factual picture that we're aware of; the last _could_ but I think it unlikely that there was that much conduct that was beyond the obstruction charge that caused this. > Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation Possibly - the SG don't go into much detail about what they mean by this; however, I would be surprised if this enhancement applied (but less so than the other two).
- tptacek 3y ago
  Yeah, you're probably right. The prosecutor press release makes a point of talking about his experience as a pilot and a skydiver, so "special skills" might apply. But the big-ticket accelerator is (b)(1)(A), and I think you're right that it can't apply to him exfiltrating and cutting up his own airplane.
  - waiwai933 3y ago
    Turns out yes to the extensive planning enhancement, as well as an aggravated role enhancement. But no to the harm/substantial interference/special skills enhancements. Details in uncle/aunt comment (is that a term?) now that I've found the plea agreement.

idlewords 3y ago

I can't imagine the government agreeing to a plea where this guy does not spend at least symbolic time in the pokey. The offense was too obnoxious and high profile to let him walk.

nieve 3y ago
It's not just obnoxious, people hike out there regularly he could have hit and he could easily have started a significant fire in a vulnerable environment. He endangered others for a sponsorship deal and then engaged in a conspiracy to hide it.
- echelon 3y ago
  I'm not going to lie - I find the video utterly fascinating and I think the world is a better and more interesting place now that it exists. It's a fascinating path permutation of the human condition / state space traversal. I do think what he did was stupid and brazen and that he should be punished. The punishment should be dealt in such a way that nobody else attempts this again. I'm also glad nobody was hurt (the probability of that was extremely low). But all of that said, I'm very glad that this video and anecdote now exist. It's incredibly fascinating. Nobody was hurt, and it's such a novel thing. If you haven't seen the video, you need to see it.
  - Maursault 3y ago
    > If you haven't seen the video, you need to see it. I disagree entirely. It lacked novelty. The entire thing felt as contrived as an amateur stunt, which is what it was, and little more: a precious snowflake and overt narcissist desperate for attention.
    - testfoobar 3y ago
      I agree with you - it is just not interesting. It is in the same vein as many corporate promo videos. Here is a Red Bull video of someone riding a BMX bike in a bowl suspended underneath a hot balloon at 2000ft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mnizjZat3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mnizjZat3Q The point of these outrageous videos is to get attention and promote a brand. Does it really work on their target market: jaded young adults? Also, I can't tell if any of these videos are real anymore. I don't care because the novelty, the shock, the wow factor wore off years ago. So someone jumped out of a crashing plane. Whatever. Could be fake. Could be real. Definitely not interesting anymore.

waiwai933 3y ago

Found the plea agreement: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.884169/gov.uscourts.cacd.884169.6.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.88... Agreed to (page 10): * Base level of 14 for obstruction of justice * +2 for the extensive planning enhancement (b)(3)(B)/(C) No agreement w.r.t: * Criminal history (which I believe is fairly standard) * +2 for aggravated role - §3B1.1(c). * Going outside the guidelines ~ I'm surprised there's no acceptance of responsibility reduction reserved by the defendant; feels like the DoJ were pressing reasonably hard on this one (tbf, seems entirely reasonable given the conduct here) ~ Correction: this is agreed on p. 2/3 If the court sentences to 18-24 months (p. 12), both parties have waived right to appeal. (And aligns with the minimum level of 15 on p. 3)

throwanem 3y ago
Good grief, it's like something out of a role-playing game.
- coolhand2120 3y ago
  If during the sentencing hearing someone casts aid I believe he will get -1d4 months.
- namaria 3y ago
  The greatest role playing game of all: society
sfmike 3y ago
is there a video or a simple follow through how one would be able to practically search through city/state/federal court cases with your speed and precision?
- waiwai933 3y ago
  I'm afraid I'm not aware of any how-to guide. City/County/State tend to be harder; federal court dockets are all uploaded to PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ https://pacer.uscourts.gov/) which has fairly good search options, though be advised that there's a usage charge. Lots of stuff then gets uploaded to RECAP (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/ https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/), but it is inherently less complete than PACER, though if you do start using PACER, I strongly recommend installing the RECAP browser extension as that will upload any documents you view to RECAP, as well as advise you when a copy is already available on RECAP. For what it's worth, this one was: 1. Find the DoJ press release (I think this was just Google search for a few keywords) 2. Accidentally notice that the press release said that the plea agreement had been filed in court 3. Open the court's PACER instance, and search for the defendant's name 4. Open the docket for the case, and download the plea agreement 5. Skim through (ignoring the factual background since I was looking for the sentencing information)

thaumasiotes 3y ago

There's no charge other than obstruction of justice? That's one of those crimes that shouldn't be valid at all without an actual crime in the background. If no crime other than obstruction of justice was committed, how can justice have been obstructed?

qingcharles 3y ago
You make an excellent point. When I was in jail there were many people who were charged only with obstruction of justice or resisting arrest. Often what would happen is law enforcement would try to arrest someone or search their property and the suspect would interfere with the process. Later, whatever caused the police to take action in the first place was nullified, either by reason of being illegal or having no factual basis, but the suspect was now still in jail for potentially years based on their (possibly) rightful action in trying to stop the police from whatever they were not supposed to be doing. Sometimes it can just be a lose/lose scenario once you come to the attention of law enforcement. If at all possible, never put yourself in a situation, or associate with those who are going to bring heat upon you from the police.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]