Goldstine pleaded guilty to three federal felonies: unlawful possession of a destructive device, unlawful possession of ammunition, and unlawful possession of a firearm. In similar federal cases, unlawful possession of a destructive device is typically charged under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), which makes it a crime to possess an unregistered ‘destructive device’; the penalty provision, 26 U.S.C. § 5871, allows for up to 10 years in prison per count. Unlawful possession of a firearm and of ammunition by a felon are generally charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), with penalties set in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8), which now allows for up to 15 years in prison per count; the actual sentence is then determined under the advisory federal Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which is why Goldstine received a 5‑year sentence in total rather than the statutory maximums.
Under federal law, a ‘destructive device’ includes explosive or incendiary weapons such as bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines, as well as certain large‑bore weapons and combinations of parts designed to make such devices (with some exclusions, such as ordinary sporting shotguns and most consumer fireworks). This definition appears in both the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5845(f)) and the Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)). When something like a pipe bomb meets this definition, it is treated as a highly restricted firearm; possessing an unregistered destructive device is itself a serious federal felony (typically up to 10 years under 26 U.S.C. § 5871), and that classification allows federal agencies such as ATF and the FBI to take the lead and often results in higher sentencing guideline ranges than for ordinary firearms.
Prosecutors asked for a 78‑month (6½‑year) sentence, citing Goldstine’s decades‑long history of violent conduct and recent threats, and argued that a longer term was needed for public safety and deterrence. U.S. District Judge John H. Chun instead imposed a 60‑month (5‑year) sentence. In federal court, sentencing recommendations from prosecutors and the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not binding; after the Supreme Court’s Booker decision, judges must calculate the guideline range but then independently weigh the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (seriousness of the offense, history and characteristics of the defendant, need for deterrence, avoiding unwarranted disparities, etc.) and may vary up or down as long as they stay within the statutory maximum. The public reporting on this case quotes the judge condemning the conduct but does not provide a detailed, case‑specific explanation for choosing 60 rather than 78 months, so the precise reasoning beyond that legal framework is not available.
Supervised release is a period of court‑ordered supervision served in the community after a person leaves federal prison, created by 18 U.S.C. § 3583. During supervised release, a person must follow standard conditions (such as reporting to a probation officer, not committing new crimes, not possessing firearms, and often drug testing or treatment) and any special conditions the judge imposes; violations can lead to being brought back before the judge and sent back to prison for additional time. Electronic location monitoring is a tool used by the U.S. Probation Office in which the person wears a tamper‑resistant device (commonly an ankle bracelet using GPS or radio frequency) that continuously tracks their location and alerts probation if they leave allowed areas, break curfews, or try to tamper with the equipment; it is often used to enforce home confinement, exclusion zones, or close supervision for higher‑risk individuals like Goldstine during part of their supervised release.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington (USAO WDWA) is the local federal prosecutor’s office; it handles most federal criminal cases arising in that district, works with local and federal law‑enforcement agencies, and is responsible for day‑to‑day charging decisions, plea negotiations, and courtroom advocacy. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, based in Washington, D.C., has nationwide responsibility for enforcing federal civil‑rights laws, including prosecuting hate crimes and other violent offenses motivated by race, religion, or other protected characteristics. In cases like Goldstine’s, where the conduct appears racially motivated, the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section often partners with the local U.S. Attorney’s Office: a trial attorney from the Division is assigned to co‑prosecute the case with an Assistant U.S. Attorney, contributing subject‑matter expertise on civil‑rights and hate‑crime law and helping ensure that the case aligns with national civil‑rights enforcement priorities.
The Puget Sound Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is a regional, multi‑agency task force led by the FBI’s Seattle Field Office that combines federal, state, and local law‑enforcement officers to investigate terrorism and terrorism‑related threats in the Puget Sound region. JTTFs work on both international and domestic terrorism, including violent extremism and serious bombings that may be intended to intimidate or coerce communities. In Goldstine’s case, FBI Seattle noted that the Puget Sound JTTF worked alongside the Everett Police Department and ATF; its role would have been to provide specialized investigative resources and expertise on bombings and hate‑motivated intimidation, help assess whether the conduct met any terrorism‑related criteria, and coordinate among agencies so that the case could be fully developed for federal prosecution.
Under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) makes it a crime for anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison (a felony, with some exceptions) to possess any firearm or ammunition that has moved in or affects interstate commerce. Washington state law has a similar prohibition: RCW 9.41.040 bars people with specified felony convictions from possessing firearms unless their rights have been formally restored. Because Goldstine had prior felony convictions for burglary, arson, and possession of stolen property, he was a prohibited person under these laws; when officers later found a gun and more than 700 rounds of ammunition in his home, that formed the basis for the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition charges in this case.