The link above literally says:

> Conspiracy to Conceal Documents (Count 12) and other objects that would implicate Maricela Rueda in the riot and shooting at the Prairieland facility.

> Defendants convicted: Sanchez Estrada and Maricela Rueda

Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants, but I think the GP poster's point is pretty valid:

> Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.

▲

AdieuToLogic an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants ...

True, that is their job.

Problem is, it is the judge's job to determine appropriate punishment for the crime once it is proven the defendant is responsible for same.

30 years (360 months) for a first time offender is roughly equivalent to Second Degree Murder (see section 2A1.2 here[0]). Even assuming the defendant has 13 or more felony convictions, this sentence would be roughly equivalent to Child Exploitation Enterprises (see section 2G2.6 here[0]).

The calculation of sentence length is based on the 2025 guidelines published here[1].

0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...

1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...

▲

dmix an hour ago | parent [-]

That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.

	▲	AdieuToLogic 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. Probably. But put yourself in the defendant's shoes when the sentence was handed down. And then imagine what comfort is had by someone saying it "likely won't hold up on appeal". > That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly. Agreed. I do not think the commenters were defending the sentencing and perhaps not considering it. What I sought to provide was recognizing the punishment must fit the crime.

▲

jeffbee 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, but I think the question is whether his actions did in fact obstruct justice. Both are relevant.

▲

bawolff an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't know that i agree. If you intend to commit a crime but due to circumstances beyond your knowladge your actions did not amount to the crime even though you intended them to, i think that is still a crime.

	▲	jeffbee an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The question is whether there exists a nexus between the supposedly obstructing behavior and the judicial proceeding. It doesn't even matter about the intent, if there was no nexus. Can the act of having moved these materials actually impeded the course of Justice?