Sentencing; Procedural reasonableness; Application of the enhancement for terrorism offenses (USSG § 3A1.4); Substantive reasonableness; Whether the district court understated the seriousness of defendant’s conduct; Weight placed on national sentencing data; The need to protect the public; 18 USC § 3553(a)(2)(C)

The court held that defendant-Ramic’s sentence for providing material support to a terrorist group and receiving military-type training from it, which was substantially lower than the Guideline range, was “substantively unreasonable.” Ramic grew up in Bosnia but became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He joined ISIS, left this country for Syria, and participated in terrorist acts. He fought in the siege of Kobane, where the U.S. launched airstrikes against ISIS. Ramic’s Guideline sentence range was 360 to 600 months, but the district court sentenced him to 101 months. It ruled that the lower sentence was appropriate where Ramic “was merely a ‘fighter’ and a ‘soldier’ who joined ‘a standard army’ that wanted to ‘require strict adherence to [Islamic] law.’” Ramic appealed the sentence, and the government cross-appealed. The court rejected Ramic’s claim that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable, upholding the enhancement for terrorism offenses, § 3A1.4. Applying the “ordinary meaning” to the undefined word “government,” the court concluded it was not “limited to governments that the United States has formally recognized.” Additionally, “even if the Assad regime didn’t count as a government” the enhancement still applied “because Ramic’s conduct was also calculated to influence or affect the United States.” On cross-appeal, the government argued that the sentence was “too low.” The court agreed, holding that the district court failed to “adequately weigh the seriousness of Ramic’s crime, potential sentencing disparities, and the need to protect the public.” The evidence supported ISIS’s brutality, and Ramic’s embrace of ISIS’s ideology. The court also noted that the district court’s ruling that Ramic did not participate in “acts of terrorism” was not supported by Congress’s interpretation of what constitutes terrorism, and conflicted with the district court’s own findings. It also held that the district court misapplied the “national statistics” factor, noting the sentence was “shockingly low” compared to other defendants who engaged in similar conduct. Further, it “failed to properly weigh the need to protect the public from Ramic’s potential future crimes.” This was critical where “Ramic hasn’t disavowed terrorism.” Vacated and remanded for resentencing.