Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

1

 Honorable Ronald Leighton 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) No. CR 05-5828 RBL 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) DEFENSE SENTENCING 

 v. ) MEMORANDUM 

 ) 

 ) 

JUSTIN SOLONDZ, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

_________________________________ ) 

 Defendant Justin Solondz pled guilty to conspiracy to commit arson and a 

substantive count of arson of a building used in interstate commerce, respective 

violations of 18 U.S.C. §§371 and 844(I), for his involvement in the destruction of the 

Center for Urban Horticulture at the University of Washington in May 2001. The 

parties agree on the general application of the sentencing guidelines and the holistic 

factors of 18 USC § 3553(a) in proposing an agreed sentence of seven (7) years. 

 A sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2012.

 1. Sentencing Recommendation

 Based on the circumstances of the case and regardless of the advisory 

sentencing guideline range that the courts deems applicable, the defense joins the 

government in recommending that the court impose the following sentence: 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

2

 1. Seven (7) years of incarceration; 

 2. Restitution of $ 6,092,649.95; 

 3. Three (3) years of supervised release with standard conditions; 

 4. Because of the enormity of restitution, all non-mandatory financial penalties 

should be waived. 

2. Objection to Presentence Report

 The defense accepts the advisory guideline computation of the Presentence 

Report but believes the Criminal History Category VI mandated by USSG §3A1.4(a)1

greatly overstates his criminal history and is an additional basis for a downward 

departure, a downward variance, and an exception to its use as a factor in his Bureau 

of Prisons security classification. As demonstrated below, a full consideration of the 

 

 1USSG §3A1.4 applies 12 levels and an automatic CHC VI to “federal crimes of 

terrorism”, defined at 18 USC §2332b(g)(5) in substantial part as offenses “calculated 

to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to 

retaliate against government conduct”. Generally, even prior to Booker, to the extent 

a defendant’s offenses were not typical (out of the heartland) “terrorist” activities, the 

court had discretion to depart downward. See United States v. Garey, 383 F.Supp. 

1374, 1378-79 (M.D. Ga. 2005)(although enhancement applied to defendant based on 

threats to blow up a city hall and other structures, a departure from the guidelines was 

warranted), rev’d on other grounds, 483 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2007). USSG §4A1.3(b) 

of the current version of the guidelines explicitly provide that a downward departure 

is warranted where the criminal history category substantially over-represents 

criminal history/propensity. Other cases support departures/variances on the basis of 

an automatic CHC VI over-representing a defendant’s criminal history/propensity to 

commit new crimes. See United States v. Sanchez, 517 F.3d 651, 662-67 (2d Cir. 

2008); United States v. Moreland, 568 F.Supp. 2d 674 (S.D. W.VA. 2008). Finally, 

the advisory guidelines are now subservient to the statutory factors of 18 USC § 

3553(a) and variances are within the general discretion of the court. 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

3

factors of 18 USC § 3553(a) conflicts sharply with a CHC VI characterization, a 

characterization that would ordinarily create substantial classification issues for Mr. 

Solondz within BOP. Accordingly, the defense requests a judicial 

recommendation/statement either that a departure/variance from the advisory 

guidelines is justified in part on the CHC VI grossly overstating Mr. Solondz’ 

criminal history/propensity and that a BOP "management variable" from a CHC VI to 

a lesser category is appropriate, given the totality of circumstances. 

3. The court should adopt the parties’ joint recommendation as 

a reasonable sentence appropriate for the entirety of the 

circumstances of both the offense conduct and Mr. Solondz 

and which satisfies the purposes of § 3553(a), as clarified by 

recent Supreme Court guidance.2

 

 For reasons that follow, the sentencing purposes of 18 USC 3553(a) can be 

satisfied with the seven-year sentence proposed by the parties. 

 A. The nature and circumstances of the offense and history and 

characteristics of the defendant (§ 3553(a)(1)) 

 

 2Sentencing courts now have the authority and a Supreme Court mandate to impose 

sentences that are not greater than necessary to satisfy the statutory purposes of 

sentencing, to consider all of the characteristics of the offender and circumstances of 

the offense, to reject advisory guidelines that are not based on national sentencing 

data and empirical research, and to serve their function in the constructive evolution 

of responsible guidelines. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); Rita v. 

United States, 127 Ct. 2456 (2007); Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007); 

Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). The court must calculate the 

sentencing guideline range and then determine the appropriate sentence for the 

individual defendant in light of the statutory factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Nelson v. 

United States, 129 S.Ct. 890 (2009). 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

4

 Justin Solondz, now 32 years of age, has always been intelligent, considerate, 

and idealistic with a developing interest in philosophy and religion, culture, and 

nature. In college he became actively involved in activities designed to address 

environmental violations. He joined clubs and peacefully protested offensive 

corporate activities. But he eventually grew disillusioned with seemingly ineffective 

and inadequate forms of social and political protest. He listened to older, more 

seasoned activists who he trusted and, without knowing the full rationale or the details 

of their plan, committed to a significant action that he thought would advance the 

cause of environmental protection. 

 That plan targeted the work of a University of Washington professor, Toby 

Bradshaw, who was believed to be engaged in genetically engineering poplar trees. 

Mr. Solondz did not know much about the subject but accepted the contention that 

genetically altered species endangered the ecological balance of nature. He was told, 

and accepted, that, to address the issue, the group planned to ignite small incendiary 

devices in Professor Bradshaw’s office at the Center for Urban Horticulture. The 

resulting small fire would be handled promptly by the Seattle Fire Department, which 

had a station house nearby. It would be alerted to and able to douse the fire before 

extensive damage occurred. To be made a responsible participant, Mr. Solondz was 

assigned the task of helping construct the simple devices with others. Additionally, 

he would participate directly in the action by being a “lookout” for the others and 

acting as a getaway driver. 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

5

 Of course, the plan backfired in a spectacular fashion, and a valuable, iconic 

public resource was completely destroyed with many people endangered and 

inconvenienced. The actual goal of making a notable public statement in favor of the 

environment morphed into the polar opposite consequence of completely discrediting 

the local activist fringes of the environmental movement. The mission was destined 

to fail for several reasons – faulty premises (Professor Bradshaw was not doing the 

work they thought he was doing and the concrete building they assumed would not 

burn very well was not actually made of concrete), reckless logic (depending on fire 

fighters to extinguish an explosive fire at some later time), and stunning political tone 

deafness (believing the public would be persuaded in their favor by an act of wanton, 

destructive violence). As one local wag characterized it, “they cut off their noses to 

spite their faces”. 

 For Mr. Solondz the arson was a major wake-up call. He shared responsibility 

for a major environmental “action” but felt absolutely stunned at the tragic, 

destructive outcome and regretted it almost immediately. He has never been able to 

justify the group’s action to himself or to anyone else. In the months following the 

arson, he broke off his social relationships with most people in the environmental 

underground. He began questioning his own sense of self-righteousness and turned 

more inward and introspective. His hubris and moral certainty gave way to a growing 

curiosity about the complexities and ambiguities of the world and people and about 

his own personal relationship to the world at large. What had once seemed to him 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

6

obvious, straight-forward, and black and white became decidedly less so. He lost 

interest in political activities and began focusing on art, cultural pursuits, and travel. 

By the time he learned of his indictment, in the spring of 2006, he had been traveling 

in Europe and Asia for almost a year, far removed in time and place from the social 

milieu he had once embraced. 

 While living and working in China (usually as an English tudor), he was 

arrested and prosecuted for manufacturing hash (done by extracting sifted resin from 

wild marijuana leaves). He faced Chinese justice, including a trial where his 

testimony was compelled and a three-year prison sentence under harsh conditions that 

included being chained naked in a glass enclosed cell.3

 For most of his confinement 

he was fed as long he met his daily quota of shelled peas. Together with his earlier 

life, the Chinese prison experience has shaped his present character. 

 Mr. Solondz (“Justin” to his friends and family) has made a deep, positive 

impression on almost everyone who has ever known him. The attached supporting 

letters, almost all from friends and family with general knowledge of his crime, 

provide astonishing affirmation of his character and vitality. He is variously 

described by people who have known him most of his life as “peaceful”, 

 

 3In the plea agreement the parties agree that any time the court imposes run

consecutive to the Chinese prison time. The defense requests the court impose seven 

years, taking into account all of Mr. Solondz’ circumstances, including the harshness 

of his Chinese prison experience for an offense (essentially possession of 15 kg of 

marijuana leaves for personal consumption) that would hardly merit charging in our 

own federal system.
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

7

“compassionate and considerate”, “generous”, “respectful of others”, honest, 

intelligent, idealistic to a fault, “truly unique” and “committed to righting all the 

wrongs of world.” The writers provide striking examples of his literally feeding the 

disadvantaged hotel help, putting socially awkward classmates at ease, being 

respectful to his elders and a helpful role model to younger relatives, being the leader 

and peace broker on his high school soccer team and “friends with everyone across all 

cliques and cohorts”, and, more recently, putting his safety and well-being at risk to 

argue the cause of a fellow Chinese prisoner being abused by the guards. No one who 

knows him believes he is a present or future threat to anyone. 

 Mr. Solondz’ role in this arson, considered in full light of his personal 

background and characteristics support a sentence no higher than the joint 

recommendation of the parties. 

 B. Sentencing purposes (§ 3553(a)(2)

Deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are prospective and 

societal– each looks forward and asks: What amount and kind of 

punishment will help make society safe? In contrast, retribution imposes 

punishment based upon moral culpability and asks: What penalty is 

needed to restore the offender to moral standing within the community? 

United States v. Cole, slip op., 2008 WL 5204441 *4 (N. D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2008). 

 i. Seriousness of the offense

 Section 3553(a)(2)(A) requires the court to consider “the need for the sentence 

imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, 

and to provide just punishment for the offense.” A sentence that is excessive in light 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

8

of the seriousness of the offense and the full circumstances of the case does not 

promote respect for law or provide just punishment. 

 No one can seriously argue that a perceived ecological imperative or 

frustration with the political process as a tool for change justifies the violent 

destruction of public property or the endangerment of human life. Everyone, Mr. 

Solondz included, agrees that this was a very serious offense, and he deeply regrets 

the harm he brought to other people and the community at large. But his crime must 

be viewed through the prism of lapsed time, his clouded idealism and youthful 

immaturity at the time, and his clear change of attitude and outlook and social break 

from the environmental fringe since the crime. These factors, considered with the 

punishment received by other coconspirators already sentenced, support the parties’ 

recommended jail sentence as promoting respect for the law, being just punishment, 

and holding him fully accountable. 

ii. Deterrence to Criminal Conduct 

Section 3553(a)(2)(B) requires the court to consider “the need for the sentence 

imposed . . . to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” But the proper 

question for the court is “marginal deterrence,” i.e., whether any particular quantum 

of punishment results in increased deterrence and thus decreased crime. Here, the 

findings are uniformly negative: increases in sentence length do not reduce crime 

through deterrence. “Three National Academy of Science panels, all appointed by 

Republican presidents, reached that conclusion, as has every major survey of the 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

9

evidence.” Michael Tonry, Purposes and Functions of Sentencing, 34 Crime and 

Justice: A Review of Research 28-29 (2006). 

 The point is especially pronounced in the case of Mr. Solondz. He had a lifelong history as an peaceful, compassionate person, and then, eleven years ago, erred 

grievously in an act of misguided idealism. Although still very appreciative of nature 

and helping preserve it, he has long since abandoned his ties to the activist 

community, renounced protest – violent or otherwise, and focused on his interests in 

philosophy and culture. His time since the arson – even his bad experience with the 

Chinese criminal justice system – has largely been introspective, peaceful and nonviolent. His abhorrence at the destruction of the his crime has forever deterred him 

from doing anything similar. 

 Other direct participants in this action have all been held publicly accountable4

, 

and conspirators in the wider conspiracy have generally been held to account in this 

district and elsewhere. The particular conspiratorial ring has largely been broken and 

disbanded. The government and the court have largely made the indelible point that 

this arson was reprehensible and completely counter to the way a civilized society 

deals with political differences. That is acknowledged with the case of Mr. Solondz, 

and no punishment greater than that contemplated in the plea agreement is necessary 

to advance any of the traditional goals of a high-profile sentencing. 

 

 4The possible exception is Willliam Rodgers, the mastermind of the UW arson, 

who committed suicide shortly after his arrest in 2005.
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

10

iii. Protection of public from further crimes of defendant 

Section 3553(a)(2)(C) requires the court to consider “the need for the sentence 

imposed . . . to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” Since the 

arson, even including the time he recently spent in a Chinese prison, Mr. Solondz has 

carefully studied the writings of philosophers and social scientists and thereby gained 

insight into himself and his past actions. He now yearns to lead a simple existence, 

living inexpensively, reading his books, doing productive work in the community, and 

making a good faith effort to dent the enormous restitution obligation he faces. He is 

not a current or future threat to the community. 

 A seven-year sentence is more than adequate to “protect the public” from Mr. 

Solondz. 

 iv. Rehabilitation in the most effective manner 

Section 3553(a)(2)(D) requires the court to consider “the need for the sentence 

imposed . . . to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, 

medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” 

 While Mr. Solondz is prepared to accept the consequences of his actions and 

will use every opportunity in prison to further his education and be otherwise 

productive – including taking college correspondence courses and working while 

incarcerated – he already possesses the raw ingredients for self-motivation and 

productivity. While additional prison time is not necessary to “rehabilitate” him, the 

prison time he does receive could be best spent allowing him to further pursue his 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

11

education, and the statutory scheme permits the BOP some flexibility in this regard. 

See 18 USC § 3621(b)5

. If provided the opportunity he believes he would excel in the 

New York-based Bard Prison Initiative (BPI), which allows incarcerated inmates to 

earn college degrees through a rigorous academic workload. Five state prisons in 

New York, in proximity to Mr. Solondz’ extended family, cater to the Bard programs. 

More details are attached. 

 The defense requests a judicial recommendation to BOP for Mr. Solondz’ 

placement in an appropriate penal facility – perhaps even a state facility in New York 

that meets federal standards – conducive to his participation in the BPI. 

 C. Kinds of Sentences Available 

Courts must now consider all of “the kinds of sentences available” by statute, § 

 

 518 USC § 3621(b) reads: 

Place of imprisonment – The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of 

the prisoner’s imprisonment. The Bureau may designate any available penal or 

correctional facility that meets the meets minimum standards of health and 

habitability established by the Bureau, whether maintained by the Federal 

Government or otherwise . . . that the Bureau determines to be appropriate and 

suitable, considering – 

 (1) the resources of the facility contemplated; 

 (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; 

 (3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner; 

 (4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence – 

 (A) concerning the purpose for which the sentence to imprisonment 

 was determined to be warranted; or 

 (B) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate. 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

12

3553(a)(3), even if the “kinds of sentence . . . established [by] the guidelines” permit 

or encourage only prison. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 602 & n.11. 

 Mr. Solondz knows his own actions have placed him out of favor with society 

but is committed to earning his way back. He incorporates his argument from the 

previous section on rehabilitation. 

 D. Consideration of Unwarranted Disparities

 Section 3553(a)(6) requires the court to “avoid unwarranted sentence 

disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 

similar conduct.” Disparity gets its content from the purposes of sentencing. 

“Unwarranted disparity is different treatment that is unrelated to our legitimate 

sentencing goals or uniform treatment that fails to take into account differences 

among offenders that are relevant to our purposes and priorities.” Paul J. Hofer, 

Immediate and Long-Term Effects of United States v. Booker, 38 Ariz. St. L.J. 425, 

442 (2006). 

 Defendants with similar records convicted of similar conduct vary widely in 

their culpability, risk of recidivism, dangerousness, and rehabilitation needs. Courts 

must now take account of these variations, and uniformity for its own sake is no 

longer the goal of the sentencing system. See Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 574 (“some 

departures from uniformity were a necessary cost of the remedy we adopted.”). And 

the judge must consider “any unwarranted disparity created by the [guideline] itself.” 

Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 574; see also id. at 575 (approving judge’s consideration of 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

13

the fact that the guideline “itself created an unwarranted disparity within the meaning 

of § 3553(a)”). 

 At the tender age of 21 Mr. Solondz was, by several years, the youngest 

participant, and with the possible exception of his then-girlfriend Briana Waters, the 

least experienced activist, in the UW arson. Compared to the other participants he was 

not involved in conceiving the plan or its details and did not recruit anyone. He did 

not attend “book club” meetings where conspiratorial plots were hatched; he is more 

aptly viewed, at the time, as a misguided idealist who shortly afterwards saw the error 

of violent protest and abruptly changed his social circle and outlook. Unlike another 

defendant, who forced the government to trial and perjured herself while testifying, 

Mr. Solondz has calmly admitted his own involvement and resolved his case quietly. 

As a matter of personal pride, and unlike several other co-conspirators with far more 

criminal activist experience, he has not sought to gain any leverage or advantage at 

any other person’s expense; he has not blamed the government for targeting him or 

claimed status as a political prisoner; he has not minimized his role in this offense nor 

posed as a martyr or cause celebre for any cause or movement. The one person 

perhaps most comparable to Mr. Solondz, except that he is older, more seasoned, 

more culpable, and apparently less repentant, is co-conspirator Daniel McGowan, 

who received seven years in the District of Oregon for committing two arsons, 

including the companion arson of the Jefferson Poplar Farm in Oregon on the same 

evening the UW arson occurred. Mr. Solondz acts now to keep his own personal 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

14

integrity but rejects the notion that he is keeping any integrity with or is even a part of 

any particular activist community. Suggestions to the contrary by others, of which 

there are several, are projections by them to further their agendas, not his. 

 Especially when compared with others similarly situated, a seven-year 

sentence would be consistent with the imperative to avoid unwarranted disparities. 

4. Conclusion

 Justin Solondz, a bright, personable idealist with a generous spirit, got caught 

up in youthful fervor for saving the planet and made a grievous mistake. He naively 

listened to older activists and, allowing his own blinding self-righteousness to obscure 

the obvious recklessness and irrationality of their plan, agreed to participate in an 

arson by helping build the devices and acting as lookout and getaway driver. Even if 

he thought the resulting fire would be contained before causing extensive damage, it 

was a terrible idea, which he fully acknowledges and regrets. 

 Almost eleven years later he faces judgment for his action. He is much wiser 

and more mature and views the world very differently. Although he is not a threat to 

anyone, he understands that he must be held legally accountable and serve some 

prison time. Despite the devastating personal setback that he brought on himself 

(along with the devastation leveled against innocents, which he acknowledges), his 

spirit has not been dimmed and he will eventually lead a free, productive life. 

 The court should accept and adopt the parties’ joint seven year sentencing 

recommendation as its own. 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

15

 Submitted this 12th day of March, 2012. 

 /s/ Michael Nance 

 Attorney for Justin Solondz 
 Michael Nance 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 Second Avenue, Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104 

 (206) 624-3211 

16

Certificate of Service

 I hereby certify that on the 12th day of March, 2012, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the clerk of the court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing 

will be sent electronically to counsel for other parties of record. 

 /s/ Michael Nance,WSBA # 13933 

 email: minance@aol.com 

 Attorney for defendant