United States of America v. Lawrence Lombardi

Tallahassee, Florida criminal represented himself without a lawyer seeking a reduction in sentencing pursuant for 8 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).



In 2000, a jury found Mr. Lombardi guilty of federal charges

related to his planting of pipe bombs that exploded on the campus

of the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University—a histori-

cally black university—in Tallahassee, Florida. Mr. Lombardi was

convicted of two counts of maliciously damaging property used in

interstate commerce by using an explosive in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 844(i), two counts of using and carrying a destructive device in

relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and

two count of interfering with federally protected activities based

on race in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(A).



The district court, using the 1998 version of the Sentencing

Guidelines, sentenced Mr. Lombardi to 108 months' imprisonment

on four of the counts of conviction, running concurrently. As to

the other two counts, the district court imposed a consecutive term

of 30 years' imprisonment on one and a consecutive term of life

imprisonment term on to the other, followed by five years of su-

pervised release. Mr. Lombardi appealed both his convictions and

his sentence, and we affirmed. See United States v. Lombardi, 253

F.3d 711 (11th Cir. 2001) (table).



After granting Mr. Lombardi's motion to vacate pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2020, the district court vacated two of the con-

victions and resentenced Mr. Lombardi to a total of 648 months'

imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Mr.

Lombardi appealed the substantive reasonableness of his sentence,

and we again affirmed. See United States v. Lombardi, No. 20-14386,

2022 WL 854499 (11th Cir. 2022).



In March of 2024, Mr. Lombardi, proceeding pro se, filed a

motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

He argued that he was eligible for a reduction based on the zero-

point offender provision of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing

Guidelines, which was made retroactive by Amendment 825.



Because Mr. Lombardi had an existing criminal history point

for a prior reckless driving offense, the district court denied his mo-

tion on the ground that he was ineligible. See D.E. 297 at 2. The

district court also alternatively ruled that, even if Mr. Lombardi

was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821, it

would exercise its discretion upon consideration of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and deny a reduction. It explained that

the reasons it set out in the record at the 2020 resentencing "re-

main[ed] fully applicable.”

Denied



Affirmed