Listen 4 min

       Share

       Comment on this story Comment

       Add to your saved stories

       Save

       The government filed notice Monday that it was appealing the sentences of the five members of the far-right Proud Boys group convicted in the Jan. 6 attack, the second such unusual notice by federal prosecutors after a similar filing in July indicating they would challenge the punishments handed down to five members of the Oath Keepers for their role in the Capitol riot.

       Keeping up with politics is easy with The 5-Minute Fix Newsletter, in your inbox weekdays. ArrowRight

       In both cases, the prosecutors were not required to file any explanation for their initial notices, but both cases could reflect government dissatisfaction with the length of the sentences, even though the Proud Boys’ former leader Henry “Enrique” Tarrio received the longest sentence yet imposed for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and three other members received more than 15 years in prison.

       U.S. to appeal Jan. 6 sentences of Stewart Rhodes, other Oath Keepers

       A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office said the filing “merely preserves our ability to appeal,” though the government typically does not appeal sentences after they are imposed.

       Advertisement

       The seditious conspiracy convictions of Tarrio and Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes were among the most high profile prosecutions for the Justice Department’s sprawling Jan. 6 investigation that targeted organized far-right groups and more than 1,000 others who attacked the Capitol as Congress met to confirm the 2020 electoral college results.

       Skip to end of carousel

       What to know about the Proud Boys sedition trial

       Former Proud Boys chairman Henry “Enrique” Tarrio and three other members were found guilty of seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. Inside the Proud Boys trial: Videos and secret chats revealed how the Jan. 6 plot unfolded. Who are the Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6 attack? Here’s what to know about the trial.

       End of carousel

       In both cases, the judges imposed sentences well below those recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines, which are only advisory. The prosecution’s practice in most Jan. 6 sentencings has been to calculate the guideline range, which combines a defendant’s criminal history and the seriousness of the offense, and then propose a sentence in the middle of that range. The judges then calculate their own guideline range, and can go within, above or below that range.

       In nearly 60 percent of the Jan. 6 felony cases, the D.C. judges have gone below their own calculated guideline range, and below the prosecution’s sentencing recommendations in 80 percent of all cases, according to a Washington Post database. Sentencing guidelines are not used in most misdemeanor cases.

       Advertisement

       In the Proud Boys case, prosecutors calculated that Tarrio, the leader of the group, should have a sentencing range of 30 years to life, and recommended a term of 33 years. But U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, calculated Tarrio’s range at 27 to 34 years in prison, and then gave him a sentence of 22 years. Judges are not required to explain why they deviate from the guidelines, as they were when the guidelines were mandatory. The Supreme Court made the guidelines advisory in 2005.

       Ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio sentenced to 22 years for Jan. 6

       Kelly acted similarly with the other four convicted Proud Boys members. Prosecutors sought a term of 33 years for Joseph Biggs, who was on the front lines of the Jan. 6 attack, and Kelly sentenced him to 17 years. Prosecutors sought 27 years for Ethan Nordean, Kelly gave him 18 years. Prosecutors sought terms of 30 years and 20 years for Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola; Kelly imposed terms of 15 and 10 years respectively.

       Share this article Share

       Nordean’s 18-year sentence equaled the term given to Rhodes, the second-longest Jan. 6 sentence, after Tarrio. Biggs’s and Rehl’s terms are the next longest of the more than 650 sentences handed down to Jan. 6 defendants so far.

       Advertisement

       “We look forward to reviewing whatever the government intends to file as a basis for their appeal,” said Nayib Hassan, one of Tarrio’s lawyers. Hassan added, “we are tediously working on the issues for Tarrio’s appeal and believe we will prevail on multiple grounds.”

       Attorney Norman Pattis, who represented Rehl and Biggs at their sentencings, said in an email after the notice was filed, “Merrick Garland is unhinged. Period. Call him the Inspector Javert of the DOJ. He should take up bungee jumping. This is no longer my government.”

       Nicholas Smith, Nordean’s lawyer, said in an email that his client “is encouraged by the government’s agreement that errors led to the judgment and sentence in his case.”

       Roger Roots, an attorney for Pezzola, called the intended appeal an “outrageous abuse of power.”

       “These are already the longest sentences in American history for participating in a political demonstration,” Roots said in a statement. “Congress was only delayed for six hours on January 6. The DOJ is really engaging in overkill.”

       This story has been updated.

       Share

       Comments

       Loading...

       View more