### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 02, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 02- 1593 3

_ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 02-60096 -CR- W PD UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee Cr oss -Appe llant, ve rs us IMRA N MA ND HA I, D ef en dant- Appe llant Cross-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe al s f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida (J ul y 2, 200 4) Be fo re BI RC H , KRA V IT CH a nd F A RR IS , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. *2

FA RR IS , Ci rc uit

Jud ge : I m ran M an dha i a

ppe al s th e 140- m onth se nte nc e im pose d f oll ow ing his gui lty ple a to c onsp ir ing to de str oy bui ldi ngs af

fe ct ing int er state c om

m er ce by m eans o f fi re or

e xpl osi ve s. Mandha i c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in im posi ng the te rr or ism

e nhanc em en t of

U . S. S. G . § 3A . 1. 4 ( 2001 ) an d th e ro le en hanc em en t of

U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( c) ( 2001 ). T he gov er nm en t c ro ss a

ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to gr an t a thr ee -l ev el downw ar d de part ur e ba se d on Man dh ai ’s comm is si on of a n i nc ho at e cri m e. Mandha i’ s f

el ony inv olv ed or w as int en de d to pr om ote af ed er al c ri m e of terrorism as defined in 18 U. S. C. § 233 2b(g)(5)(A ) and (B) . Ther e w as evidence that he was an organizer. T he rea son th e district court gave for its downw ard de part ur e w as e rr one ous al tho ugh the r ec or d r ef le ct s th at thi s c as e fa lls out sid e of the G uid el ine s “ he ar

tland. ” W e the re fo re a ff

irm the e nhanc em en t bu t r ev er se a nd rem and for re -sentencing with instructio n to consi der other re asons for a downwar d departure. In so doing , w e do not ig nore the fac t that reasons wer e advanced and rej ected in the ear lier sentencing proceeding. But since the Court granted a downw ard departure, there w as no reason or oppo rtunity to advance oth er gr ound s th at

a re a va ila

ble . R ea sona

ble m ind s m ay

dif fe r ove r w he the r to co nsi de r the tr ia l c ourt’ s sp ec ulatio n onw ha t m igh t have ha ppe ne d to be af

ind ing3

of f ac t. Whil e w ha t m igh t have ha ppe ne d un de r dif

fe re nt c ir cu m stanc es is certa inly relevant in the sentencing context , it is rarely the driving force. Back ground InN ove m

be r 2000 , 18- y ear- old

I m ran M an dam et

und er co ve r FB I ope rativ e H ow ar d G ilb er

t, w ho w as pos ing a s “ Sa if A llah, ” a dis gr

unt le d e x- Mari ne w ho had converted to Islam

and was intere sted in waging jihad against the United St at es . A ft er

he ar ing G ilb er

t sp eak a bout his de sir e to tra in p eo ple f or j iha d, Mandha i be gan tr ai nin g w ithG ilb er t. G ilb er t su gge ste d th at

a n e ff ec tiv e w ay

to harm the U. S. governm ent was to bom b electrica l subs tations. Gilbert w as te rm inate d a s an F BI sourc e in e ar ly 200 1. H ow ev er , de spi te a dm oni shm en t f ro m the F BI to ce as e his c ove rt a ct ivi tie s, G ilb er

t c ont inu ed

to m ee t and tra in w ith Man dh ai th ro ug h l at e Ma rch 20 01 . In ear ly Marc h 200 1, Mandhai w as introduced to “ Moham m ed,” another FB I co ope ratin g in div idu al w ho w as pos ing a s ate rr or ist w ithti es to O sa m a Bi n La den. Moham

m ed told Mandh ai that he wa s plannin g to establis h a local center for tra ining Muslim s to wage j ihad in Florida. T he next day , Mandhai asked Moh am m ed to pr ovi de f

inanc ia l su

ppor t t o hi s gr oup, w hic h w as planni ng t o b o m b el ec t ri ca l t ra n s fo rmer s i n Fl o ri d a i n re t al i at i o n fo r t h e U .S . g o v ern m en t ’s supp ort of

I sr ae l and o the r co untri es that op pr es s M usl im s. Mandha i st at ed that he4

planne d to c ont ac t the gov er nm en t a ft er

the a tta ck

a nd d em an d th at

it c ea se su pp or ti ng co un tri es th atop po se Mu sl im s. Mo ha m m edag reed to he lp Man dh ai . On Mar ch 13, Mandhai and Gilbert took Mohamm ed to view tw o electrica l subs ta tio ns i n F lor ida . O n th e dr ive the re , Mandha i c la im ed that he w as in ch ar ge of the ope ratio n. A ft er

Mo ha m m ed ind ic at ed that he ha d ti es w ithBi n L ad en , Mandha i r eque ste d m one y a nd s ta te d th at

he w as c onc er

ne d th at G ilb er t m igh t be wor ki ng forth e FBI . O n M ar ch16, Mandha i a ga in m et w ithMo ha m

m ed a nd G ilb er

t. D ur ing the en co unt er , Mandha i ba cktr ac ke d onhis e ar lie r cl ai m that he w as the le ad er

of the bom bing plot. Instead, Mandhai stated that the idea to bom b transform ers had or igi na te d w ithG ilb er

t. H e state d th at

he w as in ch ar ge of

r ec ru iti ng and ope ratio ns. T he ne xt d ay , Mandha i i ndi cate d an un w ill ing ne ss t o pr oc ee d w iththe bo m bi ng pl ot . Af ter an a pparent change of heart on Mar ch 23, Mandhai requested Moh am m ed ’ s he lp i n f

re ei ng H akki A ksoy , a n a sso ci at e w ho h ad be ena rr es te d on vis a fr au d and f

ir earm c harg es , statin g th at

A ksoy c oul d be of

a ssi stanc e in the ir bom bin g pl ot. O n M ar ch27, Mandha i t old Mo ha m m ed that he w an te d to r ec ru it 25 to 30 pe op le to tra in forJi ha d a nd ask edMo ha m m edto acq ui re fi rear m s. O n Apr il 4, Mo ha m

m ed sho w ed Mandha i a

c oll ec tio n of

w ea pons a nd5

ex plo siv e that he w as w ill ing to pr ovi de . Mandha i st at ed that he w as sus pic iou s of Mo ha m m edan d t ha t h e wan te d o ut of t he pl ot . A t a m ee tin g he ld o n Apr il 19, 200 2, Mandha i sp oke to Moh am m ed a nd ei ght oth er ind ivi dua ls, inc lud ing S hue y b M oss a Jokh an , in ana tte m pt t o r ec ru it the m enf or j iha d tr ai nin g. Jok

han j oin ed

the gr oup an d tw o day s late r, Mandha i, Jokh an , a nd M oham

m ed a tte nde d agunsho w . T he re , Jokhan tr ie d to buy agun but w as r ef use d be ca use his c re dit

c ar d w as de cl ine d. O n Apr il 23, Mandha i a ga in m et w ith Mohamm ed and expressed hesitation about the bo m bing plot. H owever , aft er s pe ak in g wi th Mo ha m m ed , Man dh ai st at edth athe was re ad y to pro ceed . O n Ap r i l 2 4 , M a n d h a i a n dM o h a mme db r i e f e dJ o kh a n o f

t h e p l a n t o b o mb tr an sf orm er s. B ut thr ee day s late r, Mandha i a ga in w av er ed , e xpr es sin g di str ust of Moh am m ed . H ow ev er , he a gr ee d to pr oc ee d w iththe bom bin g pl ot o nc e A ksoy w as r el ea se d f

ro m j ai l. F oll ow ing thi s, Mo ha m m ed c ha lle nge d M an dha i, questio ning the seriousness o f his convictio n. I n response, Mandhai requested bo m bs fro m Mo ha m m edso he co ul d c om

pl et e th e p la n. In May 2001 , F BI a gents int erview ed Mandhai, w ho adm itted he was planni ng t o bl owup e le ctri ca l si te s and the n de m an d th e re le as e of Mu sli m pr iso ne rs a nd c hange s to the U . S. Mi ddl e E as t po lic y . Ay ear af te r his int er ro ga tio n, Mandha i w as c harg ed w ithc onsp ir ing to da m ag e an d de str oy6

el ec tr ic al pow er

statio ns o r a N at ion al G uard A rm or y by m eans o f fi re a nd ex plo siv es und er

18 U . S. C. § 84 4( i) , ( n) ( Co unt 1) , a nd i nduc ing Jokhan to da m ag e the pr ope rty

of a n e ne rg y

f ac ili ty in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 13 66 ( Co unt 2) . H e ple d gu ilty

to Co unt 1 i n e xc hange f

or dis m iss al of

Co unt 2, a nd a gove rn m en t a gr ee m en t t o r ec om m en d athr ee -l ev el downw ar d a dj ustm en t f or acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y an d a sen te nc e atth e lo w end of t he st an da rdran ge . A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at Mandha i ha d an of

fe nse le ve l of 28 and a c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y of V I. I n r ea ch ing the se f

igure s, the co urt r ule d th at the te rr or ism

e nhanc em en t of

U . S. S. G . § 3A 1. 4 ( 2001 ) an d th e ro le e nhanc em en t of

U . S. S. G . § 3B . 1. 1( c) ( 2001 ) ap pli ed , w hic h, c om bin ed w ith t h e t h re e l ev el re du ct i o n fo r a cc ep t an ce o f r es p o n s i b i l i t y, br o u g h tMa n d h ai ’s offense level to 31. O ver the governm ent’ s objection, the district court then granted a three- level downwar d departure because Mandhai comm itted an inchoate crim e, which, but for the terror ism enhancem ent, w ouldhave allowed him to benefit from

the offense level r eduction for uncom pleted crim es under U . S. S. G . § 2X 1. 1( b) (2 ) (2 001) . T he c ourt the n im pose d 14 0 m onths, the lowe nd of th e ad jus te d s ta nd ardran ge . D isc us sio n 1. T er ro ri sm a nd R ole E nhanc em en ts.7

A c hallenge to the appli cation of the Sentencing Guidelines is a m ixed que sti on o f lawa nd f

ac t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of

f ac t are r ev ie w ed

f or cl ear er ro r w hil e its appl ic at ionof the G uid el ine s to tho se f ac ts i s r ev ie w ed

de no vo . U nit ed Sta tes v . J

am ieson , 20 2 F .3d12 93 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ).

“ In te rp re ta tio n of

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s is sim ilar to s ta tut or y int er pr et at ion and is sub j ect to de novo review on appeal. ” U nit ed Sta tes v . G ool

sby , 908 F . 2d 861, 863 (11t h Cir. 1990 ) (c itations om itted). If the c ri m e of

c onvi ct ion“ is a

f el ony that i nvol ve d, or

w as int en de d to pr om ote , af

ed er al c ri m e of

te rr or ism , ” U . S. S. G . § 3A . 1. 4( a) a nd ( b) r equir e the co urt t o in cr ea se the de fe ndant’ s of fe nse le ve l by

12- le ve ls o r to 3 2, w hic he ve r is gr eate r, a nd t o in cr ea se the c ri m ina l hi sto ry to Cate gor

y V I. A“ fe de ra l c ri m e of terrorism ” is defined as any offense that: (1) “ is calculated to influence or aff ect the c ondu ct

of gov er nm en t by int im idatio n or

c oe rc ion , or

to re ta liate a ga ins t go ve rn m en t co nd uc t” ; an d, (2 ) is on e o f th e o ffen se s l is te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 2332 b(g)(5)(B ). 18 U. S. C. § 233 2b(g)(5)(A ). T he obj ec t of

Mandha i’ s c onsp ir ac y

– de str oy ing bui ldi ngs use d in int er state c om

m er ce by f ir e or e xpl osi ve s un de r 18 U . S. C. § 84 4( i) – i s sp ec if ic al ly listed as a feder al terr orism crim e in 18 U. S. C. § 233 2b(g)(5)(B) . But conspi racy to d o so und er

18 U . S. C. § 84 4( n) is not . I n li ght of thi s, Mandha i arg ue s, he did8

no t co m m it a fed eral cri m e o f te rro ris m to whi ch th e en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s. W e re j ect the ar gum ent. W e utilize traditional rules of statutory co ns tru ct io n t o i nt erp reta gu id el in e. U nit ed Sta tes v . F

ue ntes- R iv era , 323 F . 3d 869, 872 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . W e m ust int er pr et agui de lin e “ so tha t no w or ds s ha ll be discarded as being m eaningless, redundant, or m ere surplus age.” United States v. Canals-Jimenez , 943 F . 2d 1 284, 128 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 1) . Agui de lin e’ s m eanin g is derived first from

its plain lang uage and, absent am bigu ity , no additional in qu iry is n eces sa ry . Se e CB S I nc . v . Prim eT

im e, 24 J oin t V en tur e , 245 F . 3d 1 217, 12 22 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). H ad the G uid el ine dr af

te rs int en de d th at

§ 3A 1. 4 a

ppl y onl y w he re the de fe ndant i s c onvi ct ed

of ac ri m e lis te d in18 U . S. C. § 23 32b( g) (5 )( B) , the y w oul d have included su ch lim iting language. I nstead, they unam bigu ouslycast a broader net by apply ing th e enhancem ent to any offense that “ invo lved” or wa s “ intended to prom ote” a ter

rorism crim e. T he term

“ invo lve” m eans to “ include.” United Sta tes v . G raha m , 275 F . 3d 4 90, 516 ( 6thCi r. 200 1) . T he phr as e “ or int en de d to pr om ot e” i n t urn, m

us t h av e ad di ti on al m ean in g. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . D rur

y , 344 F. 3d 10 89, 1099 (11t h Cir. 2003 )(statutes m ust be read so that no words are dis card ed a s m eanin gle ss, r ed

undant, or

sur plu sa ge ). I n or din ar

y usa ge , to

“ prom ote” m eans “ to bring o r help to bring . . . into b eing . . . .” W eb ste r' s T hird9

Ne w I nt’ l D ic tio nary , p. 1815 (1976). U nder a plain rea ding , the phrase “ intended to p ro m ote ” m eans tha t i f a goa l or pur pose w as to br ing or

he lp b ri ng i nto be ing a cri m e li st edin 18 U.S.C. § 2 33 2b (g )(5 )(B) , th e te rro ris m en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s. G raha m , 27 5 F .3dat 5 16 -1 8. Mandha i arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in ap ply ing the te rr or ism en hanc em en t t o hi m

be ca use : 1) his c onsp ir at or ia l a ct s w er e too f ar r em ove d f

ro m the a ct ua l c om m iss ionof

af ed er al c ri m e of

te rr or ism a nd 2 ) the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t ev ide nc e to p ro ve his c ri m e w as “ ca lc ulate d to inf lue nc e or a ff ec t the c ondu ct

of gove rn m en t by

int im idatio n or

c oe rc ion , or

to re ta liate a ga ins t go ve rn m en t co nduc t” sin ce it

w as spe cu la tiv e that he w oul d or c oul d f oll owthr oughon the co ns pi racy’ s p la n t o b om b e le ct ric al su bs ta ti on s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 33 2( b) (g )(5 )(A). Co ntr ar y to Mandha i’ s a sse rt ion , the te rr or ism e nhanc em en t do es not

hin ge uponade fe ndant’ s a

bil ity to carr y out spe ci fi c te rr or ist

c ri m es or

the de gr ee of se paratio n f

ro m the ir a ct ua l i m ple m en ta tio n. R athe r, it

is the de fe ndant’ s purp ose that i s r el ev an t, a nd i f that purp ose is to p ro m ote ate rr or ism c ri m e, the en hanc em en t i s tr igg er ed . Mo re ove r, the re w as sub stanti al e vid en ce sup portin g the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing that the obj ec t of

Mandha i’ s c ri m e w as to inf lue nc e or affe ctgo ve rn m en t co nd uc t, o r to ret al ia te ag ai ns t p as t g ov ern m en t ac ti on . Mandhai’ s goal was to bom b and disab le public uti lities in th e hopes that po we r10

ou ta ge s wo ul d l eadto civ il st rif e an d u ph eav al on th e st reet s o f Mi am i. He planne d to de m an d th e re le as e of Mu sli m pr iso ne rs a nd c hange s inthe gove rn m en t’ s f

or ei gn p oli cy

a ft er the bom bin gs. H e soug ht w ea

pons , m one y , a nd explosi ves, and he staked out targets to bom b. T he rec ord supp orts the district co urt’ s r uli ng tha t M an dha i i nte nde d to pr om ote af ed er al c ri m e of

te rr or ism . T he en hanc em en t w as pr ope r ev entho ugh the r ec or d r ef le ct s th at Mandha i l ac ke d bo th the m eans and the ability to carr y out his defined activity

without assistance that was no t p res en t. Mandha i ne xt c ha lle nge s th e im posi tio n of

the “ ro le ” en hanc em en t of U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( c) ( 2001 ), w hic h r equir ed the dis tr ic t c ourt t o in cr ea se his of fe nse le ve l by

tw o if he w as a n “ or ganiz er , le ad er , m an ag er , or sup er vis or ” in cr im ina l a ct ivi ty . T he a sse rt ionof c ontro l or

inf lue nc e ove r onl y

one ind ivi dua l i s su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he rol e en ha nc em en t. United States v. G lover , 179 F . 3d 1300 , 130 2 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . Mandha i r ec ru ite d S huy eb Jokhan in to the plo t, pr om pt edhi m to pu rch as e weap on s, an d b rie fedhi m on th e b om

bi ng pl an . Not hi ng m or e was requi red . 2. D ownward De parture. The governm ent challenges the district court’s dec ision to depart downward i n Ma n d h ai ’s o ff

en s e l ev el b y t h re e l ev el s u n d erU.S .S .G. § 5 K2 .0 (2 0 0 1 ). WeAlthough Ma ndhai was se ntence d befor e the e ffe ctive date of the PROTECT’s Act’ s 1 chang es to the standar d of re view, we rec ently held that PROTECT applies retroa ctively to case s pendingon appea l at the time of its enac tment. See U nited States v. Sauce do-Patino , 358 F.3d 790 (11th Cir. 2004). 11 re vie wase nte nc ing c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s de nov o to de te rm ine w he the r a de part ur e fr om the standard

r an ge is ba se d onaf

ac tor that: 1) advanc ed the obj ec tiv es of

f ed er al se nte nc ing pol ic y ; 2) w as auth or iz ed und er 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( b) ; and 3 ) w as j ust if ie d by the f ac ts o f the c as e. 18 U . S. C. §§ 3742 (e )( 3) & (4 ) (a s am en de d Apr il 30, 200 3) ; United States v. Pressley, 345 F . 3d 1205 , 1209 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2003 ). 1 A c ourt m

ust im pose astandard

r an ge se nte nc e unl es s th er e ex ist s a

“ m iti ga tin g c ir cu m stanc e of akin d, or

to a de gr ee , not

a de qua te ly

take n in to consideration b y

the Sentencing Com

m issio n in form

ulating the guidelin es that shou ld r es ult

in a se nte nc e dif

fe re nt f ro m that de sc ri be d. ” U . S. S. G . § 5K2. 0. T he unus ual circum stances m ust take the case outside the “ heartland” of ca ses co nt em pl at edby the st an da rdran ge . Koon v. U nited Sta tes , 518 U . S. 81, 91, 116 S. Ct . 20 35 , 20 43 , 13 5 L. Ed. 2 d 3 92 (19 96 ), part ial lyabr ogat ed byP ub. L . N o. 10 8- 21 , 11 7 S ta t. 6 50 (20 03 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that a downw ar d de part

ur e w as w ar

rante d pr im ar ily because Mandhai com

m itted an inchoate crim e:12

I think that th is crim e w asn’ t com pleted and that a three-level re duc tio n is appr opr ia te . I t w oul d have be engiv enha d th e te rr or ist enhancem ent not appl ied. I f this would have just been scored under ar son, it w oul d have be engiv en . A nd I thi nk i t’ s on ly f ai r that a cr im e that’ s no t c om

ple te d, that i t be tr eate d di ff er en tly than a co m ple te d c ri m e. A nd b as ed on a ll the f

ac ts o f thi s c as e, I ove rr

ule the G ove rnm en t’ s ob

j ec tio n and g ive athr ee -l ev el r ed uc tio n be ca

use it ’s an i nc ho at e cri m e. W e ag re e w iththe gov er

nm en t tha t the a rt ic ulate d r ea son is n ot a va lid ba sis f or de pa rti ng . The te rrorism

enhancem ent im

posed m andatory

offense level and crim inal h i s t o ry ad ju s t m en t s . In ch o at e c ri m es we re b ro u g h ti n t o t h e e n h an ce m en t ’s heartland when the dra fters e xtended it to any offense that involved o r w as int en de d to pr om ote af

ed er al c ri m e of

te rr or ism . U . S. S. G . § 3A 1. 4; se e als o G raha m , 275 F . 3d a t 51 7. W ith out dis cu ssi ng h owthe part ic ular fa ct s of Mandhai’ s offense disting uished it from others in its class, the district court atte m pte d to c ar

ve out ac at eg or ic al e xc ep tio n to the te rr or ism e nhanc em en t f

or cri m es th atare n ot co m

pl et ed . W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt, how ev er , that the 12 l ev el inc re as e to Mandha i’ s of

fe nse le ve l r equir ed

by the te rr or ism

e nhanc em en t pr ev en ts the pe na lty f ro m f itt ing the c ri m e, ba se d onthe f ac ts o f thi s r ec or d. T he tot al ity of the circum stances in this record, along with other fa ctors that m ight n ot have been13

br ough t t o th e Co urt’ s a tte nti on b ec au se he gr an te d adownw ar d de part ur e, m ay be su ffi ci en t t o re m ov e th e cas e fro m th e Gui de li ne s “ he art la nd .” The thre e branches of governm ent have distin ct functions in the crim inal jus ti ce s y st em . The Leg is la ti ve Bran ch de fin es th e cri m e an d p res cri be s p en al ti es . The Exec ut iv e Bra nc h h as ab so lu te di sc ret io n i n d eci di ng who an d wh atto ch arg e. T he Jud ic ia l B ranc h ha s r es pons ibi lity f or se nte nc ing . T he re a re sound r ea sons for this divis ion of function s. I n tim es of cr ises, a shading of responsibil ity can and does occasion ally

result in a breakdown that w ouldbe avoided if each branch ac ce pte d it s r ole a nd p ro pe rl y dis ch ar ge d it s c onst itu tio na l ob lig at ion . F or ins tanc e, the r el oc at ionof Ja pane se w as la te r de te rm ine d to be ina ppr opr ia te on ev id en ce t ha t was read il y av ai labl e atth e ti m e o f th e act io n. See H iraba yashi v. United States , 82 8 F .2d59 1, 5 93 (9t h C ir. 1 98 7) . Indis ch ar gin g th e se nte nc ing f unc tio n, w e pr ope rl y

c onsi de r al l ci rc um stanc es that c onst itu te the f ull r ec or d, a s w el l a s th e langua ge of pe rt ine nt se nte nc ing law s. O nly

tw o of the f our kno w n pe rs ons w ho p ar

tic ipate d inthi s conspiracy

we re c harged. A m ain engine drivin g the consp iracy wa s How ard G ilb er t, w ho w as not

c harg ed e ve n th oughhe appare ntl y r ec ru ite d M an dha i and i n i t i a l l y d e c i d e dt h e g o a l o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y. P S I ¶

8 , 1 3 . F u rth e r , e v e ry t i me Mandha i, the onl y

te en ag er inv olv ed , ha d se co nd thoug hts , Mo ha m m ed a nd14

G ilb er t, both se as one d a dul ts, ke pt the c onsp ir ac y on tra ck . P SI ¶

¶ 18, 14, 21, 24- 26. A lthou gh it was suggested th at G ilbert wa s not charged because he w ithdrew fr om the c onsp ir ac y , the r ec or d r ef le ct s th at Mandha i a lso w ith dr ewa ft er be ing co nf ro nte d by gov er nm en t a ge nts . P SI ¶

29, 33. T he re is no r ec or d of a ny a ct ion by Mandha i be tw ee n M ay

200 1 and h is i ndi ctm en t a y ear la te r. W e cannot

a nd d o not require the prosecutor to giv e re asons for his exercise of discretion to charge, but we properly

consider the full record as w e rule upon the appropriate sentence. It is ea sy to fo rg et that the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s are m er el y that–g uid el ine s. A ny

a tte m pt t o r em ove a ll j udi ci al dis cr et ionin se nte nc ing w oul d ra ise se ri ous co nc er

ns a bout the se paratio n of

pow er s. A ny

sound l eg al ba sis , j ustified bythe fac ts and not inconsis tent with the sentencing statu tes can be a proper ground for departure. T he requirem ent is that the reasons for the departure be set for th wit h c la rit y

an d t ha t i t b e co ns is te nt wit h t he sen te nc in g s ta tu te . A co urt tha t r ea sona

bly gr an te d adownw ar d de part ur e, e ve n th oughf

or aw ro ng re as on, sho uld

be e nti tle d to c onsi de r w he the r the re a re pr ope r gr ound s f or de part ur e, e spe ci al ly

on a r ec or d th at

sug ge sts that the re is. O ur s is ar

ule of law . W e can and m

ust ke ep our tr ad iti ona l de m oc ratic pr in ci pl es in pl ace a s we d eal wit h t erro ris m an d i ts th reat . On th is reco rd , a sentence range of 188 to 235 m onth s is excessive for the crim e Mandhai15

co m m itt ed . W e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof

the te rr or ism

a nd r ole enhancem ents, re verse the downw ard departure im posed for the sole reason that the stated reason wa s im

proper, but re m and for a newsentencing hearing, at w hich th e d is tri ctco ur t s ho ul d c on si de r ne w gro un ds forth e d own wardde pa rtu re. AF FIRMED IN P AR T, REV ERS ED AN D REMA ND ED FOR RE SENTE NCING.16Th e fa c t th at ot he r m e mbe rs of

the c on sp ir a c y

we re no t c ha

rg e d w itha

c ri me is 1 ir re le va nt t o whe the r t

his c a se is o uts ide the g uid e lin e s’ he art land . A s th e ma jor ity re c og nize s, the pr os e c uto r h a s d isc re tio n in de c idi ngwh o to c ha

rg e wi th a c ri me . T he pr os e c uto r’ s f a ilure to c ha rg e Gi lbe rt

wi th a c ri me do e s n ot, and

c ann ot, take Ma

nd ha i’ s c a se outsi de of

the g uid e lin e s’ hear tland. 17 KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , c onc ur

ri ng i n part

a nd d iss en tin g inpart : I concur in Par

t 1 of the m aj ority

opini on and agree that the district court co rr ec tly appl ie d th e te rr or ism

e nhanc em en t t o M an dha i’ s se nte nc e fo r his co nvi ct ionba se d onac onsp ir ac y to de str oy

abui ldi ng u se d inint er state com m erce . I also agree that the district court erred by granting a downwar d departure under U .S .S .G . § 5K2.0 on the basis th at Mandhai com m itted an inc hoa te c ri m e. I dis ag re e, how ev er , that the f ac ts t ak e thi s c as e out sid e of the Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s’ he ar tland. Mo re ove r, in m

y vie w , w e la ck

j ur isd ic tio n to rem and for the district court to consid er a lternative bases for a downwar d de part ur e. T he re fo re , I r es pe ct fu lly dis se nt f ro m the la st p ortio n of

P ar t 2 of the m aj or ity opi nio n. T he m aj or ity

be lie ve s th is c as e is o uts ide the gui de lin es ’ he ar tland, a nd, thu s, adownw ar d de part

ur e is a ppr opr ia te f

or se ve ra l r ea sons . T he se r ea sons inc lud e: ( 1) oth er

m em be rs of the c onsp ir ac y , inc lud ing the “ m ai n e ngi ne dr ivi ng the c onsp ir ac y , ” w er e not c harg ed w itha ny c ri m e; ( 2) Mandha i “ ha d se co nd

1The district cour t specifica lly

found that “ha d the Gover nment authorities provided Mr . 2 Mandhai with we apons of mass de struction, . . . he would have wanted to use them, and . . . had Mr . M and

ha i c on ta c te d s ome oth e r t e rr or ist ins te a d o f a

Go ve rnme nt a g e nt, . . . a tr a g e dy wo uld have oc curr ed.” ( SentencingHea ringTr. at 22.) Thus, the district court re jected the argument that Mandhai’s “ second thoug hts” would have preve nted him from committing a tr ag ic cr ime. Th e re is n o s ug g e sti on

that th is f

a c tua l f ind ingis c le arl y

e rr on e ou s. The mer e fa ct that g overnme nt ag ents wer e involved does not take this case outside of 3 the g uid e lin e s’ he art land . D e fe nd ants are fr e qu e ntl y c onvic te d a

nd se nte nc e d e ve n th ou g h th e ir convictions wer e made possible by the use of g overnme nt ag ents. See, e .g ., United States v. Puche, 350 F .3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2003) (a ffirmingthe conspira cy conviction of the de fenda nt and rema nding f or re sentenc ing on a

basis unrelated to this case) .

18 thou ghts,” but was kept in the conspi racy by “ seasoned adults ;” and (3) Mandhai 2

“ withdrewafter

being confronted bygovernm ent agents.” (Ma j . O p. at 13. ) 3 Ba se d onthe se f

ac tor s, the m aj or ity

c onc lud es that the c as e is o uts ide of the guid elines’ heartland because “ the 12 level increase to Mandhai’ s offense level re qui re d by

the te rr or ism

e nhanc em en t pr ev en ts the pe na lty f ro m f itt ing the crim e. ” (I d.) The district court, however, explicitly considered all of the fac tors raised by the m aj ority , a s well a s m any others, and re fused to grant a downwar d de part ur e fo r an y

of the se r ea sons . A s ar es ult , w e do n ot h av e j ur isd ic tio n to rem and for the district court to consid er a downwar d departure on the proffer ed ba se s. A dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef usa l t o gr an t a

downw ar d de part

ur e is o rd inari ly unreviewable on appeal. U nited States v. O rtega, 358 F.3d 1278 , 1279 (11th Cir. 2003 ) (per

curiam); U nited States v. T orrealba, 339 F.3d 1238 , 1247 (11th Cir.Th e fa c tor s d isc us se d b y the ma jor ity a s ta kin gthi s c a se outsi de the g uid e lin e s’ 4 he art land we re argue d b y

Mand ha i’ s c ouns e l and

we re re je c te d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt . F ir st, reg ardingMandhai’s “ second thoug hts,” Mandhai’ s counsel ar g ued: “[T]hey are in and out of thi s c on sp ir a c y . T he y

are a g re e ing . T he y

are dis a g re e ing . T he re is n oth ingfi rm wi th r e g ard

to what the ultimate outcome is g oing to be .” (Sente ncingHea ringTr. at 10.) Second, with re g ard to Mandhai’s withdra

wal, Mandha i’s counsel a rgued: “He talked about blowingsome stuff up. He dr ove ar ound with them when they took the pictures. And the n he quit. He sa id Iam not do ingit. ” (I d. at 12 .) Thus , M and ha i r a ise d th e fa c tor s th at th e ma jor ity be lie ve s w arr ant a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt

re je c te d th e m. 19 2003 ); U nited States v. L iss, 265 F.3d 1220, 1230 (11th Cir. 2001); United State s v. Rudisill, 187 F.3d 1260, 1265 -66 (11th Cir. 1999). A n exception exis ts where the dis tr ic t c ourt be lie ve d it la ck ed the auth or ity

to de part . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Brenson, 104 F.3d 1267, 1286 (11 th Cir. 1997 ). But, when the district court understands its discretionary power and denies a downwar d departure, this court ha s no j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l. U nit ed S ta te s v. H ar

ne ss, 18 0 F .3d12 32 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). H er e, the r ec or d sh ow s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt kn ewit ha d th e au tho ri ty

to gr an t a downw ar d de part

ur e on m an y

ba se s, inc lud ing tho se sug ge ste d by the m aj ority . At the sentencing hearing, def ense counsel argued that a downwar d de part ur e w as appr opr ia te be ca use Mandha i w as y oung , he w ith dr ewf ro m the co nspi ra cy , his int en t w as spe cu la tiv e, the gov er nm en t ov er

re ac he d init s us e of governm ent agents, and the guidelin es’ sentence w as excessive for the c rim e. 4 (See Sentencing Hearing Tr. at 9-12.) In response to these argum ents, the districtThe majority also rema

nds beca use “the re w as no re ason or oppor tunity to advanc e 5 oth e r gro un ds [fo r a

do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e ] that are ava ila

ble [und e r t

he fa c ts o f t

his c a se ].” (M a

j. Op. at 2.) G iven the extensive number of bases upon whic h Mandhai a rgued that a downwar d depar ture wa s appropr iate at his sentenc ing he aring , it is di fficult to fathom what new ba ses Mand ha i c ou ld b ri ngto t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s atte nti on on re mand . M or e ov e r, Ma

nd ha i c e rt a inl y had a r eason to a dvance as many g rounds as possible–to rec eive a s larg e a downwar d depar ture as possible. Mandhai ha d ample opportunity to make such a

rguments and, as shown a bove, he made them. In addition, the majority

rema nds this case be cause “a se ntence rang e of 188 to 235 months is ex cessive f

or the c rime Mandha i committed.” (Maj. Op. at 14.) Reg ardle ss of one’s view of a particula r sentenc e imposed under a guideline, a c ourt is require d “to impose a sente nce within the guide line, whether the guideline sentenc e sits well with it or not.” United States v. Onofre -Seg arr a, 126 F .3d 1308, 1311 (11th Cir. 1997). 20 co urt st at ed : The other r equest for a downw ard departure that he is less culpabl e, that he volu ntarily

withdrewfrom

the conspiracy , his age, that he wa s inc ap ab le of

c om m itt ing the c ri m e, G ove rn m en t ov er re ac hin g, a nd the other argum ents, ar e ar gum ents that I have the discretion either indiv iduallyor j ointl y

or com binin g them

together to do a downward de part ur e, but I don ’ t thin k th at

e ith er ind ivi dua lly

or a s ac om posi te that the y a re out sid e the he ar

tland o f ca se s, a nd tha t the y w oul d w ar rant the Co urt’ s e xe rc isi ng d isc re tio n, a nd I de cl ine the r eque st f or a downward departure. (Sentencing He aring Tr . at 19.) T hus, the district court recognized that it had 5 authorityto grant a downward departure based on, inter alia, Mandhai’ s age, am biv al en ce about

c om m itt ing the c ri m e, a nd the gov er nm en t’ s us e of

a ge nts , but21

spe ci fi ca lly

r ef use d to e xe rc ise that di sc re tio n. B ec au se w e la ck j ur isd ic tio n to re vie wthat de ci sio n, I w oul d a ff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s im

posi tio n of

the te rr or ism en hanc em en t, r ev er se the gr an t of adownw ar d de part

ur e unde r U . S. S. G . § 5K2. 0, an d r em an d w ithins tr

uc tio ns t o im

pose ase nte nc e co nsi ste nt w iththat r ev er sa l.