NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FEDERAL LAWYERS
How long for burning federal building
|Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. We’re a second-generation law firm managed by Todd Spodek, with over 40 years of combined experience handling federal cases that others won’t touch. Our attorneys have represented clients in cases that made national headlines — from the Anna Delvey Netflix series to the Ghislaine Maxwell juror misconduct matter. When you’re facing federal arson charges involving government property, you need lawyers who understand how these cases actually get prosecuted and sentenced.
Federal arson targeting government buildings carries some of the harshest sentences in the federal system. This article breaks down the statutes prosecutors use, the sentencing ranges you’re actually facing, and how recent cases show the government treating these crimes as domestic terrorism even when that wasn’t the defendant’s intent.
The Statutes Federal Prosecutors Use
18 USC 81 covers arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction — federal property like military bases, courthouses, federal office buildings. Maximum sentence: 25 years. If the building is a dwelling or if you place any person’s life in jeopardy — life imprisonment.
18 USC 844(i) is the workhorse statute. It applies when you damage or destroy property used in interstate commerce by fire or explosives — essentially any federal building. Base penalties: 5 to 20 years. But there’s a mandatory minimum of 7 years if anyone is injured or if the offense creates a substantial risk of injury to any person, and that ceiling jumps to 40 years. If death results, you’re looking at 20 years to life.
The mandatory minimums are just the floor. Sentences for burning federal buildings regularly exceed 15 years when prosecutors invoke terrorism enhancements.
Casey Goonan Got 19+ Years for Oakland Federal Building Attack
In June 2024, Casey Robert Goonan tried to throw lit Molotov cocktails into the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland. When he couldn’t break the windows, he placed three explosive devices in a planter outside and lit them. Nobody died, the building didn’t burn down.
Goonan pleaded guilty to one count under 18 USC 844(i). The statutory range: 5 to 20 years since no one was injured. But the sentencing judge gave him 235 months — 19 years and 7 months.
Why? The terrorism enhancement under Section 3A1.4 of the sentencing guidelines. Goonan admitted his crimes were designed to influence the U.S. government through intimidation and coercion. The court called him a “domestic terrorist.” That enhancement alone adds 12 levels to your offense level calculation — transforming a mid-range sentence into decades.
Federal prosecutors don’t need a formal terrorism charge to invoke terrorism sentencing enhancements. If your conduct was “calculated to influence government by intimidation or coercion,” sections 844(e), (f), and (i) qualify as federal crimes of terrorism under 18 USC 2332b(g)(5). The enhancement applies whether you consider yourself a terrorist or not.
Enhancement Factors That Drive Sentences Higher
Federal sentencing guidelines for arson start with a base offense level, then add enhancements. The guidelines set a base offense level of 24 if the offense created substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury — not just people inside the building, but firefighters, police, federal officers who respond.
If you knowingly created substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, add 18 levels. If you recklessly endangered anyone’s safety, add 14 levels. If the offense involved a residence, add 12 levels.
Federal prosecutors love the “substantial risk of injury” enhancement because it’s easy to prove. Molotov cocktail at a building where federal employees work? Substantial risk. Fire at a closed courthouse with security guards? Still substantial risk. The officers who guard these buildings count as persons at risk — their presence alone triggers it.
In Goonan’s case, prosecutors argued he created substantial risk to officers. Combined with the terrorism enhancement, his guideline range shot into the 15-to-20-year zone. The judge went to the top.
The Mandatory Minimum Trap
When defendants hear “5-year mandatory minimum” for 844(i) charges, they miss the point. That’s the absolute legal floor — not what you’ll actually serve.
In 2024 and 2025, ATF initiated 1,796 arson investigations and federal prosecutors are selective. When they indict for burning a federal building, they’re seeking sentences measured in decades.
Gabriel Agard-Berryhill threw an incendiary device at the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse during 2020 protests — his grandmother accidentally identified him from a product review photo. He took a plea deal and got time served plus supervised release. Compare that to Goonan’s 235 months for similar conduct. The difference? Prosecutors didn’t pursue the terrorism enhancement against Agard-Berryhill, possibly because his conduct occurred during broader protests rather than as an isolated attack.
Prosecutorial discretion — whether to invoke terrorism enhancements, whether to stack charges — determines your actual sentence far more than the statutory language.
The Sentencing Reality
Without enhancements — if you burn federal property without creating risk to any person and without political motive — you’re looking at 5 to 8 years under a plea agreement, 10 to 12 if you go to trial.
With risk-of-injury enhancements but no terrorism finding — 8 to 15 years, depending on damage and criminal history.
With terrorism enhancements — as Goonan learned — 15 to 25 years. The judge will go high if the attack was planned, if you brought multiple devices, if you targeted a sensitive location like a courthouse or military base.
If anyone dies — even accidentally — you’re facing life imprisonment.
What Defense Attorneys Look For
What’s the evidence of intent? Did you specifically target a federal building because it was federal property, or is the government stretching to establish federal jurisdiction over a state arson case? If we can challenge jurisdiction, we might avoid the terrorism enhancement entirely.
Can we challenge the risk-of-injury enhancement? If the building was genuinely unoccupied and you took steps to ensure no one would be endangered, that’s an 18-level enhancement we might defeat. That’s the difference between 6 years and 20 years.
What’s your actual motive? Drunken vandalism that got out of hand is different from a planned political attack. The line between protest-related property damage and domestic terrorism determines whether you serve 8 years or 20.
Your criminal history matters enormously. Someone with no record gets more leniency than someone with prior arsons. If you’re in Criminal History Category I, we can argue for a downward variance.
At Spodek Law Group, we’ve handled federal cases where prosecutors sought the maximum sentence and gotten our clients outcomes they didn’t think were possible. Not because we cut deals with prosecutors — our loyalty is to you, not to the U.S. Attorney’s Office — but because we know how to challenge enhancements, litigate guideline calculations, and present mitigation evidence that moves judges.
Federal arson charges involving government buildings are among the most serious non-homicide offenses you can face. The statutes allow for life imprisonment, prosecutors routinely seek terrorism enhancements, and federal judges view attacks on government property as attacks on the rule of law itself. If you’re charged or under investigation, don’t talk to federal agents without counsel present.
Get experienced federal defense counsel involved immediately. The difference between a 5-year mandatory minimum and a 25-year terrorism-enhanced sentence often comes down to how your attorney frames the case in the first 30 days.