Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 1 of 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- v. S1 18 Cr. 820 (JSR)
CESAR ALTIERI SAYOC,
a/k/a “Cesar Randazzo,”
a/k/a “Cesar Altieri,”
a/k/a “Cesar Altieri Randazzo,”
Defendant.

THE GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
for the United States of America

Sam Adelsberg
Emil J. Bove III
Jane Kim
Jason A. Richman
Assistant United States Attorneys
Of Counsel

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 46

Table of Contents
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 4 
I. 

The Defendant’s Terrorist Attack ....................................................................................... 4 
A. 

The Defendant Threatened Violence Against the Victims for Years Since
At Least 2016 ............................................................................................................. 4 
1. 

The Defendant Used Social Media to Incite Violence Against the Victims
and Convey Direct Threats Beginning in April 2016 ....................................... 5 

2. 

The Defendant’s Cellphone Reflects Violent Notes and Messages Dating
Back to September 2016 ................................................................................... 6 

3. 

The Defendant’s Email Accounts Reflect Research Regarding Explosives
Beginning in October 2017 ............................................................................... 6 

4. 

The Defendant’s Laptop Reflects Attack Planning Beginning in At Least
December 2017 ................................................................................................. 8 

B. 

The Defendant Mailed 16 IEDs to 13 Victims Across the Country ........................ 10 

C. 

The Arrest of the Defendant and Seizure of His Van .............................................. 19 

D. 

The Forensic Analysis of the Defendant’s IEDs...................................................... 20 

II.  The Charges and the Defendant’s Plea Agreement .......................................................... 22 
III.  The Defendant’s Guilty Plea Allocution and Statements to the Court ............................. 23 
A. 

The Defendant’s March 21, 2019 Guilty Plea Allocution ....................................... 23 

B. 

The Defendant’s Post-Plea Letters to the Court and Subsequent Proceedings ........ 23 

C. 

The Defendant’s April 15, 2019 Statements to the Court Affirming His Guilty Plea
and Plea Allocution .................................................................................................. 24 

IV.  The Probation Office Calculates a Guidelines Sentence of Life Imprisonment ............... 25 
V.  The Probation Office Recommends a Sentence of Life Imprisonment ............................ 26 
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 26 
I. 

A Life Sentence Is Warranted Based on the Nature and Seriousness of the
Defendant’s Terrorist Attack ............................................................................................ 27 
A. 

The Defendant Planned and Executed a Terrorist Attack with the Intent to
Harm Others ............................................................................................................. 27 

B. 

The Defendant’s Attack Crippled Parts of Several Cities and Required a
Massive Response .................................................................................................... 32 

II.  A Sentence of Life Imprisonment Is Sufficient but Not Greater than Necessary to Protect
the Public from Further Terrorism Crimes of the Defendant Given the Defendant’s
Absence of Remorse, Lack of Candor with the Court, and Failure to Fully Accept
Responsibility for His Crimes ........................................................................................... 34 
i

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 3 of 46

A. 

The Defendant’s Lengthy Criminal History Gives Rise to a Significant Risk
of Recidivism ........................................................................................................... 34 

B. 

The Defendant Has Not Fully Accepted Responsibility or Demonstrated Remorse
for His Crimes .......................................................................................................... 35 

C. 

The Defendant’s Expert Report Does Not Mitigate His Conduct ........................... 37 

III.  A Life Sentence Will Avoid Creating Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities .................... 39 
A. 

United States v. Tomkins, No. 07 Cr. 227 (N.D. Ill) ................................................ 39 

B. 

The Anthrax Cases ................................................................................................... 41 

IV.  A Life Sentence Is Necessary to Afford Adequate Deterrence and to Promote Respect
for the Law ........................................................................................................................ 42 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 43 

ii

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 4 of 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- v. S1 18 Cr. 820 (JSR)
CESAR ALTIERI SAYOC,
a/k/a “Cesar Randazzo,”
a/k/a “Cesar Altieri,”
a/k/a “Cesar Altieri Randazzo,”
Defendant.
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in connection with the sentencing
of Cesar Altieri Sayoc (“Sayoc” or the “defendant”), scheduled for August 5, 2019. For the reasons
set forth below, a Guidelines sentence of life imprisonment is necessary and appropriate.
Over the course of approximately two weeks in late-October 2018, the defendant mailed
16 improvised explosive devices (“IEDs”) to 13 victims around the country (the “Victims”). The
defendant’s terrorist attack was the culmination of years of violent and hate-filled threats, months
of planning, and days of carefully assembling the explosive mailings while proudly monitoring
media coverage of the widespread panic he induced. It is clear that the defendant perpetrated this
attack intending to injure and silence public servants and private citizens based on their civic
activities, and to intimidate like-minded people from entering the public arena and participating in
discourse that is critical to the proper functioning of this country.
The defendant manifested his violent intentions through the preparation of the mailings
and the construction of the IEDs. In addition to addresses, he found photographs of each of the
Victims and placed them carefully on each IED with a red “X” over their faces. He also added
black flags similar in appearance to banners used by ISIS and other foreign terrorist organizations.
In each of the 16 PVC pipes, he packed not only explosive powder from fireworks, but also “pool

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 5 of 46

shock” and shards of glass. He used the pool chemicals, which typically contain chlorine, to
increase the chances of burning the skin of the Victims. He added the glass shards hoping to pierce
the Victims’ flesh and seeking to maximize potential injuries and other damage in connection with
an explosion. Sixteen separate times, the defendant mailed a package containing an explosive with
these components while intending to injure people, to scare and intimidate others, and to damage
property. He mailed these IED-laden packages to government facilities, private offices, and—in
a telling sign of his depravity—an assisted living facility that former Vice President Joseph Biden
had happened to visit just once.
While there is no dispute that the defendant’s IEDs would not have functioned as designed,
that fact has little legal significance or practical import here. As a legal matter, the definition of
“destructive device,” as relevant to 16 of the defendant’s offenses of conviction, requires only that
the bomb be capable of exploding and intended to be used as a weapon. Those elements are met
here. As a factual matter, the defendant’s IEDs were dangerous, capable of causing extensive
harm, and responsible for shutting down parts of several major metropolitan areas, including train
stations, schools, and postal facilities. Notwithstanding his design flaws, the defendant has
admitted that he understood that each IED was capable of exploding, which would have resulted
in the discharge of glass shards and toxic chemicals towards the holder of the package and those
in the vicinity, and therefore presented a risk of harm to both people and property. Conduct of this
massive scale and scope, animated by these deadly intentions, warrants severe punishment.
The defendant’s failure, at least thus far, to fully accept responsibility and express remorse
further supports the imposition of a life sentence. The defendant appears to regret facing potential
punishment, but not what he did and the harm that his attack caused. His factual allocution in
2

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 6 of 46

connection with his guilty plea was legally sufficient but strained at best. Following the plea, he
sought to recant sworn statements to the Court regarding his intent, clinging desperately in two
separate letters to the implausible claim that he intended to damage property but not injure people
with his explosives—because he evidently fears that harsh consequences are likely to follow from
such baldly violent intent.
In a similarly desperate effort to avoid accountability, the defendant claimed that his IEDs
were a “hoax.” That is simply false. Deficient as the defendant may be as a bomb maker, hoaxes
do not involve real explosives, real shards of glass, and real toxic chemicals, as the defendant’s
IEDs did. The defendant also outright lied in his post-plea letters by asserting that he had not
reviewed his allocution prior to reading it and was tricked by his lawyers when answering
questions from the Court. That was also false, and the defendant’s lies further indicate that he is
willing to say anything he believes may help him avoid appropriate punishment. At an April 15,
2019 conference, the defendant wisely appeared to abandon at least some of these untenable
positions. After the conference, however, the Court docketed a third letter from the defendant in
which he used terminology of military conflict and war in a poorly conceived effort to justify his
actions, once again demonstrating that he executed his terrorist attack with violent intent to harm.
Thus, in addition to the seriousness of the offense conduct, a life sentence is necessary to
protect the public from the defendant due to his lack of remorse and lengthy criminal history,
including a 2002 conviction for making bomb threats while invoking the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks. Such a sentence is also appropriate in order to promote respect for the law and to
achieve general deterrence of others who may contemplate similar acts of domestic terrorism.

3

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 7 of 46

BACKGROUND
I.

The Defendant’s Terrorist Attack
The defendant spent more than a year contemplating acts of violence against the Victims,

and other politicians and celebrities, in order to silence them. He put his plan into action beginning
on or about October 17, 2018, when he commenced a widespread terror campaign that lasted
approximately two weeks. During that period, the defendant conducted his nationwide campaign
of terror by constructing and mailing 16 IEDs from South Florida to 13 Victim addressees in New
York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., Delaware, Georgia, and California.
Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) ¶¶ 73-74).

(July 8, 2019

Each package included a pipe bomb

consisting of explosives packed inside a PVC pipe along with glass shards that would function as
shrapnel, at least one photograph of the Victim-addressee (sometimes with relatives) covered with
a red “X,” and a black flag similar in appearance to flags used by ISIS and other foreign terrorist
organizations. While the 13 Victims were the defendant’s most readily apparent targets, his attack
placed thousands of innocent people in harm’s way, including the Victims’ families and
employees, employees of the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) throughout the country, and law
enforcement personnel responsible for responding to and rendering safe the defendant’s IEDs.
A.

The Defendant Threatened Violence Against the Victims for Years Since
At Least 2016

The defendant’s electronic devices, including his cellphone and his laptop, his social media
and email accounts, and his van were seized and searched following his arrest on October 26, 2018.
(See PSR ¶¶ 76-77). The defendant’s electronic devices and accounts were filled with violent and
hateful messages regarding the Victims and other public officials, as well as online research

4

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 8 of 46

regarding explosives and the Victims. These materials establish the defendant’s deep-seated and
longstanding hatred and proclivity toward violence, his intent to harm and injure the Victims, and
his long-term planning of the attack. (See id.).
1.

The Defendant Used Social Media to Incite Violence Against the
Victims and Convey Direct Threats Beginning in April 2016

The defendant used social media to post innumerable violent and hateful messages about
the Victims and other potential targets dating back to 2016. (See Ex. B at 3-4). In April 2016, he
wrote that former President Barack Obama’s “head need[ed] to be chopped off” and wished
“death” to George Soros and former Attorney General Eric Holder. (Id. at 3). On successive days
in June 2016, he wrote that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “has to die” and “must be
killed.” (Id.). Later that summer, the defendant wrote that it was “time to seek to destroy CNN.”
(Id.). In April 2017, the defendant wished “Death” to “all Clintons.” (Id.). In November 2017,
he posted, “Your days are number[ed] Steyer[].” (Id.).
The defendant also used social media to convey threats directly and personally. In April
2018, the defendant sent a threatening message from a Facebook account in his name to the
Facebook account of then-Congressman Beto O’Rourke, which warned that O’Rourke should
“hug your loved ones everytime [sic] you leave your home” and threatened that Sayoc would “see
you soon.” Sayoc also sent O’Rourke’s Facebook account several pictures of O’Rourke, some of
which included his wife and children, and headlines from press coverage about missing persons in
South Florida, such as “Body Found in Everglades is Missing 8-Year-Old.” Similarly, in July
2018, the defendant sent numerous Facebook messages from a Facebook account in his name to
an employee of CNN, also advising the employee to “Hug your loved ones real close everytime

5

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 9 of 46

you leave your home.” The defendant’s threatening messages included a photograph of the CNN
building on fire.
2.

The Defendant’s Cellphone Reflects Violent Notes and Messages
Dating Back to September 2016

The defendant’s cellphone contained numerous messages, dating back to 2016,
contemplating violence against the Victims and others. (See PSR ¶ 77; Ex. B at 2). The defendant
sent many of these messages as notes to himself to “kill” people. (Ex. B at 2). In September 2016,
he wrote to an associate that “[h]opefully” Hillary Clinton would “die.” (Id.). In April 2018, he
wrote to himself, “Death to all liberals.” (Id.). The defendant’s cellphone also contained
photographs of some of the Victims and images of what purport to be their homes.
3.

The Defendant’s Email Accounts Reflect Research Regarding
Explosives Beginning in October 2017

The defendant created dozens of email accounts as he contemplated violence against the
Victims and others, such as “killallliberalleftdemocrats@aol.com,” which he created on January
13, 2018, and “maximwatersdeathsoon@aol.com,” which he created on January 28, 2018. The
contents of the defendant’s email accounts reveal his research regarding explosive devices,
additional death threats to the Victims and others, and efforts to compile the Victims’ addresses
for use in his attack.
On October 30, 2017, nearly a year before the attack, the defendant used the email account
cesaraltieri2@gmail.com to send himself a video of a man holding an object in one hand and a

6

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 10 of 46

flame in another, which the man referred to as a “nice cocktail”1—in an apparent reference to an
explosive Molotov cocktail:

On March 18, 2018, over seven months before the attack, the defendant searched for the
phrases, “How do they make letter bomb” and “What a letter bomb,” while logged into the email
account cesarnorthcarolina@gmail.com. (See PSR ¶ 77; Ex. B at 5-6). The search results included

1

While the speaker’s identity is unclear, the white paint on the vehicle’s door resembles that of
the defendant’s van.
7

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 11 of 46

a series of YouTube videos the defendant accessed, including one that is self-described as a
“demonstration of a letter bomb” and depicts the simulated receipt and explosion of such a bomb:

4.

The Defendant’s Laptop Reflects Attack Planning Beginning in
At Least December 2017

Consistent with his social media accounts and cellphone, the defendant used his laptop to
conduct numerous Internet searches related to murdering the Victims. On March 9, 2018, he
searched for the phrase “kill george soros.” (Ex. B at 4). In March and April 2018, he searched
for the terms, “How to kill all democrats” and “Kill all socialist.” (Id.). On May 1, 2018, he
searched for a “list of house democrats.” (Id.). In June 2018, he searched for the phrase, “Kill
Maxine waters.” (Id.).
The defendant began researching the Victims and other public officials beginning in at
least December 2017. (See PSR ¶ 77; Ex. B at 4). He conducted online searches for the Victims’

8

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 12 of 46

addresses and the addresses of other public officials. For example, on December 23, 2017, he
searched for the addresses of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senator Chuck Schumer, and
Congresswoman Maxine Waters. (See PSR ¶ 77; Ex. B at 4-5). Over the ensuing months, the
defendant repeatedly searched for the “home address” or “address” of several of his Victims,
including Waters, Clinton, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan,
Senator Cory Booker, and Robert De Niro. (See Ex. B at 4-5). His address searches increased
beginning in late September 2018, as his attack planning increased. On September 18, 2018, he
searched for, among other things, “cnn building” and strings of search terms that included relatives
of the Victims. (Id.). Beginning on September 26, and continuing during the attack, the defendant
searched for the addresses of Schumer, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, former Senator Jeff
Flake, O’Rourke, Alec Baldwin, and Tom Steyer. (See id.).
The defendant also used his laptop to compile information that he used to execute his attack
and to prepare the IED mailings. In July 2018, the defendant created files that listed the addresses
to which he mailed the IEDs in a format that he used for mailing labels when he printed the
documents. The defendant accessed these files as late as October 2018. In September 2018, the
defendant created separate files that included his return-address label format.

9

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 13 of 46

B.

The Defendant Mailed 16 IEDs to 13 Victims Across the Country

In October 2018, the defendant constructed and mailed 16 IEDs from South Florida to 13
Victims at various personal and professional addresses in New York, New Jersey, Washington,
D.C., Delaware, Georgia, and California.

(PSR ¶¶ 73-74).

The defendant listed U.S.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz as his mailings’ return address, entangling yet another
victim in his offense conduct. The defendant mailed his first IED to Soros through the USPS on
or about October 17, 2018, and continued mailing the remaining 15 IEDs to 12 more victims over
the next nine days, through on or about October 26, the day of his arrest. (See PSR ¶¶ 73-74).
Reveling in widespread media coverage of the fear and panic his bombs were causing, after the
Soros IED was discovered, the defendant mailed six additional bombs.

10

Law enforcement

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 14 of 46

recovered and rendered safe the defendant’s IEDs between October 22 and November 1, 2018, in
connection with the following chronology:
The Soros IED. On or about October 17, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to Soros’s personal
residence in Katonah, New York (the “Soros IED”). USPS personnel in South Florida scanned
the Soros IED at approximately 10:42 p.m. on October 17, and delivered it to Soros’s residence
on October 22, 2018.

(See PSR ¶ 73; see also Dkt. No. 37 at 34-40).
The Clinton IED. On or about October 18, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to Hillary Clinton
at the Clintons’ personal residence in Chappaqua, New York (the “Clinton IED”). USPS personnel
scanned the Clinton IED in South Florida at approximately 5:21 p.m. on October 18, and delivered
it to the Clintons’ residence on October 23, 2018.

11

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 15 of 46

(See PSR ¶ 74(a); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 60-65).
The Brennan IED. On or about October 20, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to Brennan at the
Time Warner Center in Manhattan (the “Brennan IED”). USPS personnel scanned the Brennan
IED in South Florida at approximately 9:23 p.m. on October 20, and delivered it to the Time
Warner Center on October 24, 2018.

(See PSR ¶ 74(c); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 50-55)).
The Obama IED. On or about October 18, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to Obama at a P.O.
Box for the Obamas in Washington, D.C. (the “Obama IED”). USPS personnel scanned the
Obama IED in South Florida at approximately 5:29 p.m. on October 18, and delivered it to the
P.O. Box on October 24, 2018.

12

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 16 of 46

(See PSR ¶ 74(b); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 30-34).
The Waters IEDs. On or about October 18, 2018, Sayoc mailed two IEDs to Waters
(“Waters IED-1” and “Waters IED-2”). Sayoc mailed Waters IED-1 to Waters’s congressional
office in Washington, D.C. He mailed Waters IED-2 to her congressional office in Los Angeles,
California. USPS personnel scanned Waters IED-1 in South Florida at approximately 1:46 a.m.
on October 19, and Waters IED-2 at approximately 3:37 a.m. on the same morning. The IEDs
were delivered to Waters’s addresses in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles on October 24, 2018.

(See PSR ¶ 74(e); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 24-29, 74-78).
The Holder IED. On or about October 19, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to Holder’s business
address (the “Holder IED”). USPS personnel scanned the Holder IED in South Florida at
approximately 1:53 a.m. on October 20. Law enforcement recovered the Holder IED from the
USPS mail stream on October 24, 2018.
13

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 17 of 46

(See PSR ¶ 74(d); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 65-69).
The Biden IEDs. On or about October 19, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to an assisted living
facility in Wilmington, Delaware, which Biden had once visited (“Biden IED-1”).

USPS

personnel scanned Biden IED-1 in South Florida at approximately 2:31 a.m. on October 20, and
law enforcement recovered it from the USPS mail stream on October 25. On or about October 22,
2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to Biden’s personal address in Wilmington, Delaware (“Biden IED2”). USPS personnel scanned Biden IED-2 in South Florida at approximately 2:14 a.m. on October
23, and law enforcement also recovered it from the USPS mail stream on October 25, 2018.

14

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 18 of 46

(See PSR ¶ 74(f); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 40-45, 45-50).
The De Niro IED. On or about October 18, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to De Niro’s
business address in Manhattan (the “De Niro IED”). USPS personnel scanned the De Niro IED in
South Florida at approximately 1:46 a.m. on October 19, and law enforcement recovered it from
De Niro’s address on October 25, 2018.

(See PSR ¶ 74(g); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 55-60).
The Booker IED. On or about October 24, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to Booker’s
congressional office in Camden, New Jersey (the “Booker IED”). USPS personnel scanned the
Booker IED in South Florida at approximately 7:36 a.m. on October 25, and law enforcement
recovered it from the USPS mail stream on October 26, 2018.

15

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 19 of 46

(See PSR ¶ 74(h); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 69-73).
The Clapper IED. On or about October 23, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to former Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper at the Time Warner Center in Manhattan (the “Clapper
IED”). USPS personnel scanned the Clapper IED in South Florida at approximately 5:22 p.m. on
October 23, and law enforcement recovered it from the USPS mail stream on October 26, 2018.

(See PSR ¶ 74(i); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 79-84).
The Harris IED. On or about October 24, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to the congressional
office of Senator Kamala Harris in Sacramento, California (the “Harris IED”). USPS personnel
scanned the Harris IED in South Florida at approximately 2:39 p.m. on October 25, and law
enforcement recovered it from the USPS mail stream on October 26, 2018.

16

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 20 of 46

(See PSR ¶ 74(j); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 84-88).
The Steyer IEDs. On or before October 26, 2018—the day Sayoc was arrested—he mailed
IEDs to two of Steyer’s business addresses in San Francisco, California (“Steyer IED-1” and
“Steyer IED-2”). USPS personnel scanned Steyer IED-1 in South Florida at approximately 10:21
p.m. on October 26, and law enforcement recovered it from the USPS mail stream that night.
USPS has not been able to identify the point at which Steyer IED-2 entered the mail stream, but it
was recovered from the mail stream on November 1, 2018.

17

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 21 of 46

(See PSR ¶ 74(k); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 90-95, 101-106).
The CNN IED. On or before October 26, 2018, Sayoc mailed an IED to CNN at its
headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia (the “CNN IED”). The CNN IED was delivered on October 29
and recovered by law enforcement after it was discovered.

(See PSR ¶ 74(l); see also Dkt. No. 37 at 95-100).
Video surveillance outside of certain USPS facilities and post office boxes captured the
defendant and his white Dodge Ram van driving past a USPS post office box located in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida on October 17, 2018, and mailing some of the IEDs from that location early
in the morning on October 18 and 24, 2018.

18

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 22 of 46

C.

The Arrest of the Defendant and Seizure of His Van

On October 26, 2018, law enforcement arrested the defendant in Florida and seized his
van, cellphone, and laptop. The windows of the defendant’s van were covered with stickers
depicting written text and images, including some that further reflect his intent to target the
Victims. (PSR ¶ 76). Other stickers contained messages such as “KILL YOUR ENEMY” and

19

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 23 of 46

“No Mercy Not An Option.” Similar to his IEDs, the van bore stickers reflecting pictures of some
of the Victims, including Obama and Clinton, targeted with cross hairs or red “Xs.”

Inside the defendant’s van, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) seized
commercially produced fireworks that contained low explosive mixtures consistent with some of
the chemicals in the IEDs, as well as solder consistent with solder the defendant used to build the
IEDs. (See PSR ¶ 76; Dkt. No. 37 at 88-90).
D.

The Forensic Analysis of the Defendant’s IEDs

Each of the defendant’s 16 IEDs was recovered, rendered safe, and transported to the FBI’s
Explosives Unit in Quantico, Virginia. Forensic analyses of the IEDs and associated material left
no doubt that the defendant was the perpetrator of the attack. Specifically, the FBI identified
Sayoc’s DNA on 12 of the IEDs, and his fingerprints on two of the IED packages.
The FBI Explosives Unit examined the IEDs and produced a 107-page report regarding its
analysis (the “FBI Explosives Report”). (See Dkt. No. 37). The FBI Explosives Report includes
the following findings and conclusions, among others:

20

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 24 of 46



Each IED included the components of a destructive device, including (i) a
“concealment container” in the form of a mailing envelope, (ii) a “confinement
container” in the form of a PVC pipe with two end caps, (iii) a “low explosive main
charge” packed inside the PCV pipe, and (iv) an “electric fuzing system.” (See id. at
24).



Chemical analysis of the explosives material in the IEDs revealed mixtures of oxidizers
and fuels typically used in “pyrotechnic formulations,” e.g., commercially produced
fireworks as seized from the defendant’s van, that “reacted energetically,” i.e., burned,
when exposed to flame. (See Dkt. No. 34 at 6-7).



Each of the defendant’s 16 IEDs contained glass fragments. “Hardened objects, such
as glass, are referred to as fragmentation. Fragmentation is a form of IED enhancement
that is added to an IED to impart further physical damage to the surrounding area,
and/or to injure or kill personnel in the vicinity of the explosion.” (Dkt. No. 37 at 24).



“Properly assembled and initiated, the resulting explosion from one of the IEDs could
cause property damage and/or personal injury.” (Id.).

The FBI Explosives Report acknowledged that the defendant’s IEDs “would not have
functioned as a result of their design,” but concluded that the IEDs were nevertheless capable of
exploding and injuring people because of the volatile qualities of the chemicals that the defendant
packed into each pipe bomb. (See id.). Given the instability of the defendant’s IEDs’ mixture, the
FBI explosives expert could not quantify the likelihood of explosion or the extent of any
detonation. The defendant’s placement of a combination of different chemicals and glass shards
within each IED, however, could have created enough friction to ignite the explosive material
within one or more of the IEDs. Additional heat and friction capable of igniting the explosives
could have resulted from the transportation, handling, and disassembly of the IEDs. In such an
event, the ignition of the explosives would have resulted in a rapid release of gasses and an
explosion of the closed-container that would propel pieces of the PVC pipes outward. The glass

21

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 25 of 46

shards would also “impart further physical damage to the surrounding area, and/or injure/kill
personnel in the vicinity.” (See id.).
II.

The Charges and the Defendant’s Plea Agreement
On March 21, 2019, the defendant waived indictment and pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement (the “Plea Agreement”), to Superseding Information S1 18 Cr. 820 (JSR) (the
“Information”). The Information charged the defendant in 65 counts related to the 16 IEDs he
constructed and mailed to victims across the country. (Dkt. No. 15). The defendant was charged
with (i) 16 counts of Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2332a(a)(2) and 2 (Counts 1 to 16); (ii) 16 counts of Interstate Transportation and Receipt of
Explosives, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(d) and 2 (Counts 17 to 32); (iii) 16 counts of
Threatening Interstate Communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 875(c) and 2 (Counts 33 to
48); (iv) 16 counts of Illegal Mailing of Explosives, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1716(j)(2) and 2
(Counts 49 to 64); and (v) one count of Using Explosives to Commit a Felony, “to wit, the
explosive powder packed inside the improvised explosive devices described in” Counts 1 through
64, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(h) and 2 (Count 65). (Id.).
Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, the defendant stipulated to a Guidelines calculation under
the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or the “Guidelines”) recommending a term of life
imprisonment, and acknowledged that Count 65 required a mandatory minimum term of 10 years’
imprisonment. (03/21/2019 Plea Tr. at 15).

22

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 26 of 46

III.

The Defendant’s Guilty Plea Allocution and Statements to the Court
A.

The Defendant’s March 21, 2019 Guilty Plea Allocution

On March 21, 2019, the defendant pleaded guilty to all of the charges in the Information,
pursuant to the Plea Agreement, based on the following sworn factual allocution:
In October 2018, I made devices that were designed to look like pipe bombs
and sent them through the U.S. mail. I sent a total of 16 devices to people
around the country. I mailed them from South Florida to George Soros,
Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, Robert De Niro, James Clapper, Barack
Obama, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder, Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Kamala
Harris, Thomas Steyer, and CNN.
I sent all of the 16 devices with the intent to threaten and intimidate people
and with the intent to injure property.
The devices consisted of a plastic pipe with a digital alarm clock and wires
attached to it. Inside the plastic pipe was powder from fireworks, fertilizer,
pool shock and some glass fragments. I also put pictures of the recipients
with a red “X” over their faces inside the package.
...
I was aware of the risk that [the devices] would explode.
(03/21/2019 Plea Tr. at 17, 20). The defendant stated that he intended the IEDs to be “viewed” as
“explosive devices” and that he was “aware of the risk” that they “would explode.” (Id. at 20).
The defendant also responded, “Yes,” when the Court asked if he knew “there was a risk that there
would be an injury to persons.” (Id. at 21-22).
B.

The Defendant’s Post-Plea Letters to the Court and Subsequent Proceedings

On or about March 23, 2019, the defendant sent a letter to the Court in which he claimed
that he misspoke during his guilty plea two days prior. (Dkt. No. 18). He asserted in the letter that
“under no circumstances [was] my intent to hurt or harm anyone,” and that “the intention was only

23

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 27 of 46

to intimidate [and] scare.” (Id. at 2-3). The defendant also described his bombs as “decoy devices”
and his terror attack as a “hoax.” (Id.)
On or about April 1, 2019, the defendant sent another letter to the Court in which he made
further efforts to retract his sworn statements during his plea allocution. (Dkt. No. 19). He
asserted, contrary to the FBI’s expert analysis, and his own sworn allocution, that the IEDs “would
never explode” and that he was not aware of a risk of harm to others. (Id. at 3-4). The defendant
also wrote that the statement that he read to the Court on March 21, 2019, was given to him the
day of the plea and that he had “no time to read or review the paper.” (Id. at 5).
C.

The Defendant’s April 15, 2019 Statements to the Court Affirming His Guilty
Plea and Plea Allocution

On April 15, 2019, the Court conducted a conference to address the defendant’s post-plea
letters. The defendant reaffirmed his guilt on all counts of the Information. (04/15/2019 Tr. at 910). He stated that he stood by his plea allocution to the Court on March 21, 2019, and he
confirmed—contrary to the April 1, 2019 letter—that he had carefully reviewed his written plea
allocution with his attorneys prior to reading it during the guilty plea. (Id).
The Court observed that the defendant’s post-plea letters asserted, “in effect, that he did
not intend or even perceive a likelihood that he would injure anyone, and that would seem to be at
variance with the elements of at least some of the counts to which he pled.” (Id. at 4). When the
Court focused on the element of Counts 49 through 64 that requires specific intent to “kill or injure
another, or injure the mails or property,” defense counsel sought to avoid the human injury prong
and to focus on potential damage to property. (Id. at 5). The Court inquired of defense counsel:

24

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 28 of 46

[P]lease explain to me how he could have an intent to injure property, but
not an intent to injure people? So the thing would explode, but by the grace
of God, it would not injure any person who received it? . . . I am just asking
how you can possibly, under the facts of this case, say that your client had
an intent to injure property under that statute, but did not have, as he has
now repeatedly denied in his letters, any intent to injure a person?
(Id. at 5-6). Counsel replied that “there is an argument” that the element is satisfied by “intent to
cause emotional injury or intimidation towards others.” (Id. at 6-7).
The Court also asked the defendant about his intent in mailing the 16 IEDs. The defendant
initially indicated—implausibly—that he intended to injure “[j]ust the property.” (Id. at 8). The
defendant, however, then answered, “Yes,” when the Court noted that the IEDs included “some
explosive materials” and asked the defendant if he knew that the IEDs “could injure either property
or person” if they detonated. (Id.). The defendant also reiterated that he intended to “scare and
intimidate.” (Id. at 9).
IV.

The Probation Office Calculates a Guidelines Sentence of Life Imprisonment
The Probation Office concluded, and the defendant agreed in the Plea Agreement, that the

Guidelines call for a sentence of life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of 10 years’
imprisonment. (PSR ¶ 68, at 50). For each of the 16 IEDs, the undisputed Guidelines calculation
includes enhancements based on intent to injure the United States, U.S.S.G. § 2M6.1(a)(1),
targeting current and former officials based on their status, id. § 3A1.2(a), and intent to promote
federal crimes of terrorism, id. § 3A1.4(a).

His Guidelines calculation is literally, and

appropriately, off the chart with an offense level of 59 capped at 43.

Although the defendant’s

criminal history category is VI based on the terrorism enhancement, he also has four criminal
history points as the result of nine prior convictions. (PSR ¶¶ 220-29). One of these convictions

25

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 29 of 46

stemmed from the defendant’s threats to throw or discharge a bomb at Florida Power & Light
(“FPL”) in August 2002. (Id. ¶ 222). There, the defendant contacted FPL and threatened to “blow
up FPL” in a manner that would be “worse than September 11th.” (Id.). Sayoc told an FPL
employee that if FPL cut his utility services, “something would happen.” (Id.).
V.

The Probation Office Recommends a Sentence of Life Imprisonment
The Probation Office recommends a sentence of life imprisonment. (PSR at 50). This

recommendation is based on the seriousness of the offense; the defendant’s long-term planning of
the attack, which included online research regarding bomb-making and the Victims; the
defendant’s targeting of public officials; the fear the defendant caused to the Victims and to the
public; the need for general and specific deterrence; and the defendant’s criminal history, which
dates back to 1991 and includes the above-described conviction for threatening to bomb FPL in
2002. (Id. at 52-53).
DISCUSSION
The statutory sentencing factors counsel in favor of a Guidelines sentence of life
imprisonment. The defendant’s offenses are exceedingly serious. He poses significant risk of
recidivism based on his prior convictions and his lengthy history of threats against public officials.
And a Guidelines sentence is critical and necessary to achieve general deterrence of acts of
terrorism targeting public servants and participants in civic discourse. Put simply, the defendant
intended to silence, through harm and fear, those with whom he disagreed, and now he must be
incapacitated to protect the public and promote respect for the law.

26

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 30 of 46

I.

A Life Sentence Is Warranted Based on the Nature and Seriousness of the
Defendant’s Terrorist Attack
The indisputably serious nature of the defendant’s crimes warrant a life sentence. See 18

U.S.C § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A).
The defendant engaged in a premeditated and prolonged course of conduct that culminated
in a two-week terrorist attack involving 16 pipe bombs that he constructed and mailed to multiple
victims, including a former U.S. President, current U.S. Senators, a current U.S. Congresswoman,
and other former government officials. His large-scale attack triggered massive law enforcement
response and crippled parts of several major metropolitan areas as well as several government
facilities. The defendant acted—16 separate times—with violent intent, including the intent to
harm, threaten, and silence innocent civilians. In doing so, the defendant terrorized the public and
placed thousands of individuals in harm’s way.
A.

The Defendant Planned and Executed a Terrorist Attack with the Intent to
Harm Others

The defendant contemplated violence for years, planned his attack over the course of
several months, and mailed 16 IEDs to 13 Victims around the country—while enjoying media
coverage of the mass panic and fear he created.
In April 2016, the defendant called for the then-U.S. President to be decapitated. (See Ex.
B at 3). Continuing until his arrest, in private messages and public social media posts alike, the
defendant incited and planned violence against numerous people, including the Victims and other
public officials. Of his targets he wrote the following: Their “days are numbered,” their “head
need be chopped off,” “death to him,” “dead man walking,” “You will die soon contract written,”
“Death to Hilary,” “Death Death Death to all Clintons,” “He must die,” “kill him,” “kill him,” “kill
27

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 31 of 46

him.” (See id.). By December 2017, the defendant was researching the Victims and their
addresses. (See id. at 4-5). In 2018, he sent threatening messages to O’Rourke and CNN. By
March 2018, he was conducting searches and watched a YouTube video relating to the
construction of “letter bomb[s].” (Id. at 4). Beginning in July 2018, the defendant started to
compile the Victims’ addresses into mailing labels on his laptop.
The defendant’s construction of each of the 16 IEDs required careful planning, assembly,
and the intent to harm others. He has admitted as much. The defendant purchased PVC pipe,
clocks, fireworks, wire, mailing labels, envelopes, and stamps. He found the addresses and
downloaded photographs of each of the Victims and their family members. Sixteen different
times, the defendant drew “Xs” over a Victim’s face, printed mailing labels, placed an IED in an
envelope, drove to a USPS mailbox, and mailed a pipe bomb that he intended to cause injury,
property damage, and fear. (See 03/21/2019 Plea Tr. at 17; PSR ¶ 76). Surveillance video captured
the defendant’s mailings at least twice:

28

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 32 of 46

The videos help illustrate the defendant’s careful execution of the attack, as he sought to mail the
IEDs early in the morning when witnesses were less likely to observe him.
For each of the 16 IEDs, the defendant used tape and/or putty to seal the PVC pipes, which
increased the chances that the expansion of gas resulting from the ignition of his explosives would
cause parts of the pipe to be launched outward towards members of the public:

If it were true, as the defendant suggested in one of his letters, that he intended these IEDs as a
“hoax,” there was no reason for him to fill the pipes with an explosive and seal them in this fashion.

29

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 33 of 46

The defendant admitted at his guilty plea that he also put “pool shock,” i.e., chlorine, in the
IEDs. His purpose in that decision is clear: The defendant intended that, even absent a detonation,
his IEDs would harm people—not property—by exposing the Victims, USPS workers, law
enforcement, and anyone else who came into contact with his devices to burns from toxic
chemicals. But it is also clear that the defendant very much hoped his IEDs would explode and
harm people in the process. His decision to pack glass shards in with the explosives demonstrates
his violent intent:

The significance of the shards cannot be understated as an indicator of the defendant’s intent.
There is no reason to pack fragmentation into an explosive device other than to maximize the
likelihood that the bomb will cause injury. Each of the 16 times the defendant did so, he hoped
that an explosion would cause the glass to lodge into the flesh of a human being.
The addressees on the defendant’s IED mailings were not his only victims. The defendant
endangered the 13 Victims’ families, friends, and colleagues, and thousands of others. The
defendant tried to mail an explosive to a nursing home simply because Biden had once visited it.
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”) estimates that the defendant placed numerous postal
facilities, which employ hundreds of employees, six commercial properties, three private

30

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 34 of 46

residences, five congressional offices—and each of the individuals within these residences,
facilities, or properties—at risk of harm should even one of the defendant’s 16 IEDs have
detonated.
The culpability of the defendant’s actions, and his intent, increased exponentially as he saw
firsthand the terror and panic that his IEDs caused during his extended attack. On October 23,
2018, he sent a text message to 18 people with a link to The New York Times coverage of the Soros
IED. (Ex. B at 2). On October 24, 2018, the defendant proudly watched television coverage of
his ongoing attack, with a visible smile that speaks volumes about his pre-arrest mindset:

31

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 35 of 46

(See Ex. A at 1-4). He then proceeded to mail approximately three additional bombs. On October
25, 2018, in the midst of widespread coverage of his IEDs, he sought to prolong the attack with a
thirteenth victim by searching for “tom steyers mailing address” and then mailing Steyer IED-1
and Steyer IED-2. (See Ex. B at 5).
In sum, the defendant’s 16 IEDs, considered individually, warrant substantial punishment
because of the intent to injure associated with each mailing and the risk of harm to countless people
that each device posed. When the defendant’s 16 IEDs are evaluated together, as part of a twoweek terrorist attack preceded by a prior bomb-threats conviction in which the defendant invoked
the September 11, 2001 attacks, years of premeditation, and months of planning, his course of
conduct reflects escalating criminal intent that warrants a life sentence.
B.

The Defendant’s Attack Crippled Parts of Several Cities and Required a
Massive Response

The magnitude of the law enforcement response to the defendant’s IEDs—an effort that
was truly national in reach and necessary to protect the public from additional acts of terrorism by
the defendant—demonstrates the exceptionally serious nature of the defendant’s conduct, the harm
that it caused, and the need for general deterrence.
Law enforcement recovered and rendered safe the defendant’s IEDs on an almost daily
basis over a 10-day period from October 22 to November 1, 2018, including three devices
recovered as many as four days after he was arrested on October 26. Beginning on October 22,
law enforcement around the country worked tirelessly to protect the public by responding to
frequently emerging bomb scenes, finding and recovering additional IEDs within the USPS mail
stream, working to identify and apprehend the defendant, investigating over a thousand reports

32

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 36 of 46

and leads from the community, and notifying Victims and potential victims targeted by the
defendant.
In Manhattan, from October 24 forward, for approximately eight days, the New York Joint
Terrorism Task Force (“JTTF-NY”), including agents, officers, analysts, attorneys, from the FBI,
the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), USPIS, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security
Investigations, and approximately 50 JTTF-NY partner agencies, assembled in a command center
that operated around the clock to coordinate the nationwide investigation. At certain points, up to
approximately 90 law enforcement personnel staffed the JTTF-NY’s command center. The FBI
also operated a supplemental command center in Miami, Florida, for several days.
Beginning on October 22, the USPS alerted each of its approximately 35,000 facilities and
500,000 employees to the defendant’s ongoing attack, and urged vigilance in efforts to identify
suspect mailings. In the early stages of the investigation, the number of IEDs and the number of
perpetrators was unknown. As a result, USPS locations across the country heightened their
screening to locate possible devices, affecting USPS operations around the country. The USPIS
devoted more than 20% of its personnel to locating, tracking, and recovering the IEDs, and to
ensuring that no other IEDs were in the mail stream, including approximately 531 Postal
Inspectors, Postal Police Officers, analysts, support staff, and contractors.
Individual responses to some of the defendant’s IEDs demonstrate the fear that the
defendant caused and the magnitude of the response each of the 16 bombs triggered. When the
Soros IED was discovered on October 22, 2018, dozens of law enforcement officers responded
from numerous law enforcement agencies, including JTTF-NY, the FBI’s Evidence Response
33

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 37 of 46

Team, the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction squad, the USPIS, the ATF, the Westchester
County Police Department, the Westchester County Bomb Squad, the Bedford Police Department,
the Katonah Fire Department, and the NYPD. Employees were evacuated from the Soros
residence, safety sweeps were conducted across the property, and the IED was secured. When the
Brennan IED was discovered, the Time Warner Center was evacuated, the Columbus Circle
subway station was temporarily closed, and public facilities—including at least two schools in the
Columbus Circle area—were ordered to shelter in place. The USPS evacuated entire facilities
upon the discovery of Waters IED-2, the Booker IED, and Steyer IED-1.
The defendant’s attack caused significant disruptions in several major metropolitan areas,
in addition to widespread fear and panic, which illustrate the seriousness of his conduct and the
importance of deterring such behavior in the future through the imposition of a term of life
imprisonment.
II.

A Sentence of Life Imprisonment Is Sufficient but Not Greater than Necessary to
Protect the Public from Further Terrorism Crimes of the Defendant Given the
Defendant’s Absence of Remorse, Lack of Candor with the Court, and Failure to
Fully Accept Responsibility for His Crimes
The defendant’s criminal history, his lack of remorse, and his failure to fully accept

responsibility demonstrate that the defendant poses an ongoing risk of danger to the community.
A life sentence is thus necessary here in order to protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C).
A.

The Defendant’s Lengthy Criminal History Gives Rise to a Significant Risk
of Recidivism

The defendant’s criminal history dates back to 1991 and includes nine prior convictions.
His prior convictions include crimes of dishonesty and fraud, such as theft and possession of false
34

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 38 of 46

and altered identity documents. (PSR ¶¶ 220-28). He has received several lenient, probationary
sentences, but violated terms of probation imposed in 2015. (Id. at 51).
The defendant’s most pertinent prior conviction arose from bomb threats that he conveyed
in August 2002. Just over a month before the one-year anniversary of the September 11 terrorist
attacks, the defendant threatened to “blow up” a Florida utility company in an attack that “would
be worse than September 11th.” (Id. ¶ 222). He received a sentence of probation for that offense,
which was plainly insufficient to deter him from making violent threats and engaging in acts of
violence and terrorism.
B.

The Defendant Has Not Fully Accepted Responsibility or Demonstrated
Remorse for His Crimes

The defendant elected to enter a guilty plea based on an extremely narrow factual allocution
and illogical positions regarding his culpability. Indeed, after hearing the defendant’s allocution
and reading his post-plea letters to the Court, the Government offered its consent to permit the
defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. He declined. Nevertheless, while the
defendant’s plea allocution and post-plea statements are legally sufficient, they are also factually
dubious—to say the least—and reflect the defendant’s failure to fully accept responsibility and
demonstrate meaningful remorse.
The defendant’s intention to plead guilty based on a strained factual allocution was
immediately apparent during the change-of-plea proceeding. The Plea Agreement required pleas
to 16 counts involving “weapons of mass destruction.” See 18 U.S.C. § 2332a. The statutory term
“weapon of mass destruction” includes “any destructive device as defined in” 18 U.S.C. § 921. Id.
§ 2332a(c)(2)(A). A “destructive device,” in turn, must be capable of exploding and intended to

35

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 39 of 46

be used as a weapon. See United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2016). The
Court addressed this definition specifically at the defendant’s guilty plea, and defense counsel
argued that “[w]hether or not that item was actually a destructive device, is not an element” of
Counts One through Sixteen. (03/21/2019 Plea Tr. at 19-20).
Neither the Court nor the Government was comfortable, based on the facts of this case, that
the defendant could “threaten” to use a destructive device without having actually used one. He
did not mail, or email, or post on Facebook, threats to send the Victims IEDs. He mailed them
IEDs. His mailings did not include a note indicating that subsequent packages would contain
better-constructed bombs. Rather, he succeeded in assembling crude destructive devices; his
mailings included explosives, toxic chemicals, and shards of glass packed into PVC pipe.
Consistent with these factual problems, the Court specifically inquired of the defendant at his
guilty plea, and he confirmed under oath that he was “aware of the risk that [his IEDs] would
explode.” (Id. at 20).
Next, when the Government pointed out that Counts 17 through 32 require intent to injure
persons or property, defense counsel suggested that the defendant’s plea was based on the latter.
(Id. at 21). The defendant, however, stated under oath that he understood there were risks of injury
to property and people. (Id. at 22).
Nevertheless, after the defendant’s guilty plea, he sought to recant some of his sworn
admissions in two letters submitted to the Court. At a conference on April 15, 2019, defense
counsel once again argued that intent to damage property was sufficient. (04/15/2019 Tr. at 5).
The Court reiterated its doubt that someone could, “under the facts of this case,” intend to damage
property but not harm people. (Id. at 5-6). In response to questioning from the Court, the defendant
36

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 40 of 46

indicated at first that he intended to damage “[j]ust the property.” (Id. at 7). But he ultimately
agreed that he understood that “if those exploded or caught fire or in any other way detonated, that
it could injure either property or person.” (Id. at 8). And of course that is true. Any suggestion to
the contrary is frivolous.
At the April 15 conference, the Court noted that it had received a third letter from the
defendant, which was docketed on April 23, 2019. (Dkt. No. 26). The letter contained a lengthy
proffer of unpersuasive excuses for the defendant’s terrorist attack, couched in the terminology of
armed conflict that provides additional evidence of his own violent intent. For example, he argued
that politics are “very dangerous,” referred to “political war,” and blamed “leftist encouragement”
for “promoting violence”—a thinly veiled attempt to blame his Victims for his crimes. (Id. at 19,
26). Thus, the defendant’s post-plea behavior reflects a lack of acceptance of responsibility and
remorse, and demonstrates the importance of specific deterrence at this sentencing.
C.

The Defendant’s Expert Report Does Not Mitigate His Conduct

The defendant retained Dale Mann, a consultant and scientist, to examine the FBI
Explosives Report and the notes underlying the FBI’s examination of the IEDs, among other
things. Notwithstanding the defendant’s guilty plea to 16 counts of using weapons of mass
destruction, he asked Mann to evaluate based on the FBI Explosives Report whether the IEDs
constituted “weapons of mass destruction” under the “destructive device” prong of the statutory
definition. (See Dkt. No. 36 at 3). Moreover, notwithstanding the defendant’s guilty plea to 16
counts of interstate transportation of explosives, and one count of using explosives in connection
with 64 other felonies, Mann also evaluated whether the defendant packed actual explosives into
his IEDs. (See id. at 6). p
37

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 41 of 46

Mann’s conclusion that the IEDs would not function as assembled is consistent with the
FBI’s analysis. (See id. at 9-10). His conclusion, however, is not dispositive of whether the IEDs
constituted “destructive devices” under Section 921. Rather, the pertinent questions are whether
the IEDs were capable of exploding, even if not as designed, and were intended to be used as
weapons. See Sheehan, 838 F.3d at 119-20; see also 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4). In Sheehan, the
Second Circuit held:
In light of the objective features of the device—which was built to look like
an IED, contained an explosive, and was capable of detonating—the jury
could rationally find that the device was objectively designed as a weapon
even if it was missing a component required to enable it to explode in a
specific way.
838 F.3d at 120; see also United States v. Langan, 263 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2001) (“To qualify
under [Section 921], we do not require that the destructive device operate as intended.”); United
States v. Johnson, 152 F.3d 618, 628 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The objective characteristics of these
devices indicated that they were useful only as weapons. Shoddy workmanship cannot make a
device that contains all the ingredients necessary to inflict harm, and to do nothing more, into
something more benign.”).2
The defendant’s IEDs were capable of exploding if heat or friction ignited his chosen
explosives. (See Dkt. No. 37 at 24). Contrary to Mann’s suggestions, there is no mystery about
the operative ingredient in the explosives and no additional testing was required. The defendant
admitted that he used fireworks, and there were fireworks seized from his van. It is also clear that

2

The Second Circuit in Sheehan also noted that the defendant’s subjective intent was “irrelevant.”
838 F.3d at 120. Here, in contrast, the defendant has admitted that he harbored violent intent as
confirmed by years of evidence.
38

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 42 of 46

the defendant intended to use the IEDs as weapons based on his admissions regarding his intent
and his inclusion of glass shards and toxic “pool shock” in the PVC pipes. See United States v.
Hammond, 371 F.3d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that definition of “destructive device”
included a pipe containing explosive powder since “when the pipe ruptured, fragments of it would
be propelled like shrapnel against the bodies of those in the vicinity”). Therefore, Mann’s report
is not mitigating and does not militate for leniency.
III.

A Life Sentence Will Avoid Creating Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities
In light of the defendant’s criminal history, the scope of his attack, the harm that it caused,

and the intent with which he acted, a life sentence will not result in unwarranted sentencing
disparities.
A.

United States v. Tomkins, No. 07 Cr. 227 (N.D. Ill)

The defendant in United States v. Tomkins, 782 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 2015), was sentenced to
37 years’ imprisonment after sending threatening letters and two packages containing what
appeared to be pipe bombs to investment firms and managers in efforts to drive up the price of
certain stocks he owned. Id. at 341. Tomkins’s homemade devices consisted of a plastic pipe
containing gunpowder, lead pellets, and an igniter connected to live batteries. Id. Letters in each
package warned that the recipients were alive only because Tomkins had left one wire on each
device unattached. Id. Tomkins was convicted of Mailing Threatening Communications, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(b), Illegally Possessing Firearms, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d),
and Using a Firearm in Connection with a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) & (B)(ii), which carried a 30-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Id.

39

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 43 of 46

Like Sayoc, Tomkins argued that his devices were “hoaxes,” and that he “did not ever
intend to hurt anybody or damage their property.” United States v. Tomkins, No. 07 Cr. 227, Dkt.
No. 441 (N.D. Ill. 2013). Unlike Sayoc, however, Tomkins did not at sentencing appear to call
into question elements of the crimes of which he was convicted. At sentencing, the Honorable
Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, properly
concluded that the mailing of just two IEDs (in contrast to the 16 in this case) was “horrific” and
“terrifying”:
The nature and circumstances of the offense. “Horrific” is the single best
word that I have seen to describe the Defendant’s crimes. “Terrifying” is
another good one. . . . As the Government stated, it was a campaign of terror
with more than a dozen victims taking place over almost [] two years. . . .
The goal was some bizarre combination of making money on his
investments and lashing out at the victims as proxies for greed on Wall
Street and issues the Defendant had with the Government and the financial
industry.
As I said before, had he wished only to make a threatening statement or call
attention to his cause, he might have placed sawdust in the cylinder. It
would have been the same effect on the recipient without placing at risk
everyone who ever came into proximity with the package.
...
Even if the Defendant is correct that by not hooking up the last wire . . . it
wasn’t likely that the device would explode, the risk was there. And when
the consequences are so severe—death or serious injury—nobody in their
right mind would ever want to play those odds with the mail clerk or the
delivery guy or any other innocent victim, much less the recipient, the
intended targets here.
Tomkins, No. 07 Cr. 227, Dkt. No. 450 at 28-29 (N.D. Ill. 2013). The Court also discussed “[w]hat
would happen if and when the Defendant is released from prison,” questioning whether the
defendant’s “time in prison [would] simply harbor more resentment that he would act out by

40

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 44 of 46

making new pipe bombs or would he work to improve himself, come to terms with what he did.”
Id. at 32. The Court found that there were “legitimate questions” about the continued danger the
defendant posed to the public. Id. at 33.
B.

The Anthrax Cases

In the early 2000s, the country experienced an “anthrax scare,” as aspiring terrorists mailed
white powder resembling the biological agent anthrax to government officials and government
facilities. Most of these cases involved the mailing of one envelope containing white powder that
was later deemed harmless but that resembled anthrax. The defendant’s attack was far more
serious in significant ways: Whereas the defendant mailed destructive devices containing actual
explosives and shards of glass, the anthrax mailings were true hoaxes. And each anthrax case
typically involved one mailing, not 16.
For example, the defendant in United States v. Guevara, 408 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2005),
wrote and mailed a letter to a United States District Judge containing a white, powdery substance
and a death threat. Id. at 255. The federal building, including the District Court, was closed for
the rest of the day, and local and federal law enforcement responded to the scene. Id. The powder
turned out to be harmless. Id. For this single mailing, Guevara was convicted of threatening to
use a weapon of mass destruction, in violation of Section 2332a, and mailing a threatening
communication by way of the USPS, in violation of Section 876. Id. The defendant was sentenced
to life imprisonment. Id.; see also id. at 263 (discussing the defendant’s criminal history and
offense level).
The defendant in United States v. Davila, 461 F.3d 298 (2nd Cir. 2006), sent an envelope
from prison to the State’s Attorney’s Office in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Id. at 298-99. Davila was
41

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 45 of 46

charged with threatening the use of a weapon of mass destruction, in violation of Section 2332a,
and delivering a threat to injure through the USPS, in violation of Section 876(c). Id. at 299. For
his one envelope, the defendant was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. Id. at 300.
Here, the defendant’s conduct was far more egregious than that of Guevara or Davila. The
defendant used and sent 16 weapons of mass destruction—not just one—through the U.S. mail to
victims across the country over the course of weeks. The defendant has admitted that each of the
16 IEDs he constructed and mailed contained explosive material, and each had the capacity to
explode and harm individuals and property. The defendant, moreover, targeted victims based on
their public service and political activities. He intended to scare the Victims, as well as other
Americans, to force them from the public sphere and end their participation in the civic discourse
that is the lifeblood of our democracy and a bedrock of good governance. For these reasons, the
anthrax cases counsel in favor of a life sentence in this case to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities.
IV.

A Life Sentence Is Necessary to Afford Adequate Deterrence and to Promote
Respect for the Law
A life sentence is also necessary to adequately deter acts of domestic terrorism aimed at

silencing and intimidating government officials and members of the public based on their political
views and activities. The act of mailing an IED to another human being, much less a current or
former public official, is completely incompatible with the functioning of an orderly society
governed by the rule of law. It is vital for our country’s security that people contemplating
violence—especially on the scale perpetrated by the defendant—be deterred by the knowledge that
such conduct will be met with a certain and severe prison sentence. It is equally vital to the nation’s

42

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39 Filed 07/22/19 Page 46 of 46

public discourse that officials and citizens alike are permitted to participate in civic discourse
without fear of violent retribution and terrorism. Thus, a life sentence is necessary and warranted
in this case to serve the pressing need for general deterrence of domestic terrorism offenses such
as the defendant’s.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should
sentence Sayoc to life in prison—the sentence called for by the Guidelines and recommended by
the Probation Office—as such a sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply
with the purposes of sentencing pursuant to Section 3553(a).
Dated: New York, New York
July 22, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By:

/s/
Sam Adelsberg
Emil J. Bove III
Jane Kim
Jason A. Richman
Assistant United States Attorneys
212-637-2038

Cc:

Defense Counsel
(Via ECF)

43

 Case Document 39-1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 1 of 5

Exhibit A

Case Document 39-1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 5

 

Case Document 39-1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 3 of 5

20 1 8?10?24 1 72092-114

 

Case Document 39-1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 4 of 5

 

Case Document 39-1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 5 of 5

. 2018?10?24 17:11:43

 

Case Document 39-2 Filed 07/22/19 Page 1 of 6

Exhibit 

Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39-2 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 6

A Sample of the Defendant’s Internet Searches Found on the Defendant’s Laptop.
Approximate Date of
Internet Search by Sayoc

Internet Search Terms

January 12, 2018

tom steyer political

January 18, 2018

cory booker

January 18, 2018

MAXIM [sic] WATERS

January 19, 2018

eric holder

February 9, 2018

kamala harris

March 20, 2018

john brennan

April 10, 2018

robert de niro

April 16, 2018

George soros

May 1, 2018

list of house democrats

May 21, 2018

james clapper

June 29, 2018

kill maxim waters

September 18, 2018

cnn building

September 18, 2018

msnbc building

September 18, 2018

george soros and family1

September 18, 2018

hilary Clinton and family

September 18, 2018

james clapper wife and kids

October 17, 2018

BARACK OBAMA FAMILY

October 23, 2018

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ FAMILY

October 23, 2018

tom steyers mailing address

October 23, 2018

CORY BOOKER family

October 23, 2018

KAMALIA [sic] HARRIS family

                                                            
1

At the time of the defendant’s arrest, the first result for this search on Google images was the
photograph that Sayoc affixed to the IED he mailed to Soros.
1

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39-2 Filed 07/22/19 Page 3 of 6

A Sample of the Defendant’s Text Messages Found on the Defendant’s Cellphone.
Approximate Date of Text
Message

Text of Message or Series of Messages2

September 17- 18 , 2016
(one recipient)

Defendant: Hopefully she’ll die
Defendant: Lol

November 13, 2016

Yep Soros at work like he did in Charlotte. Puttin Russia put
wanted dead or alive bounty on Soros head

November 30, 2017

Tom Steyer

March 23, 2018

John o Brennan

April 12, 2018

Death to all liberals
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313314127_Bloodied_
Democracy_Duterte_and_the_Death_of_Liberal_Reformism_in
_the_Philippines

May 10, 2018

Camila [sic] Harris kill her

June 20, 2018

Chris Coons Senator Delaware kill him

July 16, 2018

Anderson Cooper kill him now

July 17, 2018

That was Scalise shooting baseball game . It time to start
executing democrats period.

July 20, 2018

Jerrold Nadler democrat NY kill him

July 27, 2018

Joe Crowley democrat kill him

August 27, 2018

Viola Davis kill her congress

October 5, 2018

Bob Mendez kill him

October 23, 2018 (18
recipients)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/nyregion/george-sorosexplosive-device.amp.html

                                                            
2

Unless otherwise indicated, the text messages were sent by the defendant to himself as notes.
2

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39-2 Filed 07/22/19 Page 4 of 6

A Sample of the Defendant’s Social Media Posts Found on His Social Media Accounts.
Approximate Date of Post /
Social Media Platform

Text of Post

April 1, 2016 (Facebook)

“GEORGE SLIME DAYS ARE NUMBERED SORROS”

April 5, 2016 (Facebook)

“Obama head need to be chopped off with both dead man
walking Obama Muslim terrorist and George Slime Soros death
to Obama , George Slime Soros . . .”

April 8, 2016 (Facebook)

“George dead man walking Soros”

April 15, 2016 (Facebook)

“Eric scum Holder death to him”

June 8, 2016 (Facebook)

“Hilary will tear apart the US terrorist will flow through
America daily bombs . She has to die period not option”

June 9, 2016 (Facebook)

“The slime Hilary Clinton must be killed abolished crimes
against humanity . Death to Hilary.”

August 14, 2016 (Facebook)

“The media needs beat down and major reality check enough
enough it time to seek destroy CNN insight violence and lying
BS”

April 13, 2017 (Facebook)

“Death Death Death to all Clintons”

November 29, 2017
(Facebook)

“Your days are number Steyer…”

March 9, 2018 (Facebook)

On a photograph of George Soros with a backdrop of a
cemetery, Sayoc posted the caption “He must die”

April 28, 2018 (Facebook)

On a photograph of Sayoc holding up a poster that says, among
other things, “CNN Sucks,” Sayoc posted the caption “We want
their funded George Soros dead man walking . He will vanish
and will see it happen”

June 13, 2018 (Facebook)

“Die and leave our land never come back . Your movies and stars
suck . Di Niro will vanish soon.”

June 27, 2018 (Twitter)

Sayoc posted a map of Maxine Waters’ congressional district and
two pictures of what appear to be Waters’ home with the text
“@maximewaters see you soon Maxim.”

September 5, 2018
(Facebook)

“Death to Obama criminal Soros socialist paid puppet”

3

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39-2 Filed 07/22/19 Page 5 of 6

A Sample of the Defendant’s Google Searches.
Approximate Date

Search Terms

December 23, 2017

Address of nancy pelosi

December 23, 2017

Address chuck schumer

December 23, 2017

Address Maxine waters california

March 9, 2018

George soros killed

March 9, 2018

Kill George soros

March 9, 2018

photo soros dead

March 18, 2018

How do they make letter bomb

March 18, 2018

What a letter bomb

April 9, 2018

How to kill all democrats

April 12, 2018

Killing George soros

April 12, 2018

How to kill George soros

April 19, 2018

Maxim waters ties funds George soros

April 20, 2018

Anderson cooper cnn address

April 24, 2018

judge in cohen case tied to soros

April 24, 2018

Kill all socialist

May 17, 2018

Maximwater [sic] home address 549 south Lucerne Blvd

June 15, 2018

Address peter strzok fbi agent

June 27, 2018

Cory booker home address in new jersey

June 29, 2018

Kill Maxine waters

July 15, 2018

Hilary Clinton home address

July 15, 2018

George soros address home 136 cantitoe st katonah, ny

September 19, 2018

george soros and family

4

 Case 1:18-cr-00820-JSR Document 39-2 Filed 07/22/19 Page 6 of 6

September 26, 2018

Kill George soros head off

September 26, 2018

Address for senator chuck schumer

September 26, 2018

Address for barack obama

September 26, 2018

Michelle Obama mailing address

October 1, 2018

Jeff flake home address in arizona

October 20, 2018

Beto o’rourke address

October 20, 2018

Alec Baldwin address

October 23, 2018

Address morning joe msnbc new york

October 25, 2018

tom steyers mailing address

5