Opinion ID: 4582865
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Intent to Maximize Damage and Injury

Text: Mr. Lawless next argues that it was “unreasonable and clearly erroneous for the district court to sentence Mr. Lawless as if he had acted with the intent of maximizing the potential for harm to other people.” Aplt. Br. at 36. He reasons that the court committed clear error by assessing “Mr. Lawless’s overall culpability as if the offense had been a deliberate attempt to injure and kill other people.” Id. Given the extensive evidence before the district court, we disagree. Mr. Lawless planted five bombs in three public locations, albeit at night. He planted three bombs at a bookstore. One bomb consisted of an aluminum bottle, filled with suspected smokeless powder and equipped with an improvised pyrotechnic type fuse, attached to a propane tank. Rec., vol. II at 22, ¶ 10. The bomb was installed on “a significant amount of suspected smokeless powder.” Id. Another bomb that consisted of “a large propane container” was placed on a table inside the bookstore near a candle. Id. at ¶ 12. Mr. Lawless also planted a bomb outside of an occupied hotel, within fifteen feet of an exterior patio. Id. at 23, ¶ 17. Guests sitting on the patio reported the explosion and the ensuing fire. Id. At the sentencing hearing, the district court rejected Mr. Lawless’s argument that he planted his bombs at night “to ensure that no one was hurt.” Rec., vol. V at 45-46. The court said: “There’s no evidence before me that there were no human beings within miles of these locations in the middle of the [night] . . . There could have been security guards, there could have been maintenance folks.” Id. at 46. Ultimately, it found that, in 8 all likelihood, Mr. Lawless intended to cause death or serious injury. Given the evidence before the district court, we are not persuaded that its finding as to Mr. Lawless’s intent was clearly erroneous.