September 22, 2016
from the United States District Court for the Central
District of Illinois. No. 2:12-cr-20070 - Harold A. Baker,
Bauer, Posner, and Manion, Circuit Judges.
Manion, Circuit Judge.
case returns for a second time. Lloyd Lockwood appeals his
120-month sentence for possession of a destructive device.
Previously, we vacated Lock-wood's first sentence of the
same length. This time, for the reasons set forth below, we
Conviction and First Sentencing
attempt to gain an advantage in a family dispute, Susie
Curtis asked her longtime friend Lloyd Lockwood to place a
package in her brother's truck and then report to the
police that it contained a bomb. Lockwood agreed to do it,
but upon arrival at the brother's house, he failed to
locate the truck. As a result, Lockwood decided to place the
bomb in the brother's mailbox. He then immediately called
the police and reported that the brother had a bomb and
planned to blow up his office. An initial bomb-squad search
turned up nothing, but Curtis's sister-in-law discovered
the package in the couple's mailbox later that day.
Authorities determined that the package contained a pipe bomb
that was incapable of detonation because it was not connected
to a power source.
reviewing Curtis's phone records, federal agents zeroed
in on Lockwood. The government eventually charged him with
possession of a destructive device. Before trial, Lockwood
stipulated that the pipe bomb qualified as a destructive
device under federal law. As a result, he necessarily staked
his entire defense at trial on his supposed ignorance that
the package contained a bomb. The jury was unconvinced and
district court sentenced Lockwood to the statutory maximum
120 months' imprisonment, well above the Guidelines range
of 33-41 months. The court concluded that Lock-wood had to be
incapacitated, but it based that finding on only a short,
non-detailed description of Lockwood's criminal history
and a cursory discussion of the crime of conviction. See
Lockwood I, 789 F.3d at 778-79.
appeal, we affirmed his conviction but vacated his sentence.
We held that the district court did not explain adequately
"why Lockwood is different from the vast majority of
defendants" who receive within-Guidelines sentences.
Id. at 782. In short, the district court's
description of Lockwood's crime and brief notation of his
"extensive criminal record" was insufficient to
show why Lockwood should receive a sentence nearly three
times the top of the Guidelines range. Id.
remand, the district court again imposed a 120-month
sentence. This time, however, it detailed its justification
in a lengthy sentencing order. The court recounted testimony
from Lockwood's ex-wife and her sister, both of whom
spoke about Lockwood's propensity for violence that
continued even while he was on pretrial release in this case.
Although Lockwood's criminal history category was I, the
court found that "his Guideline criminal history and
criminal history category do not reflect the full magnitude
of his criminal conduct." It extensively detailed his
troubling history, which includes several domestic incidents
wherein he threatened to kill women, one of which resulted in
a conviction for aggravated arson when he burned down a
girlfriend's apartment building. See People v.
Lockwood, 608 N.E.2d 132 (111. Ct. App. 1992).
the district court concluded that Lockwood should be
incapacitated for a significant time to protect the public
and those closest to him. Based on the evidence and
Lockwood's demeanor, the court deemed Lockwood a
"sociopath" who showed little remorse for his
actions and had made a lifetime of excuses for criminal
behavior. Since the court held "very little hope for
Lockwood's rehabilitation or behavior modification/'
it sentenced him to the ten-year maximum. Again, Lockwood