When the owner of the original BreachForums, Conor Fitzpatrick, aka “Pompompurin,” was sentenced in January of 2024 to time served plus 20 years supervised release with special conditions, it was a shock. Although young, Fitzpatrick had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit access device, access device fraud, and possession of child pornography. Based on federal sentencing guidelines, the prosecution had sought a minimum of 188 months in prison. Instead, the judge gave Fitzpatrick no prison time at all other than the 17 days he had served in detention awaiting sentencing after he violated the conditions of his release while awaiting sentencing.
The terms of the supervised release were no walk in the park, but it certainly seemed lighter than a minimum of 15 years in prison.
In rendering her decision, Judge Brinkema appeared to rely almost exclusively on sealed mental health reports. Then where was the justice for Fitzpatrick’s victims? Where was the deterrent value of a serious prison sentence? And how would the public be safe if Fitzpatrick were living in the same home in which he had been committing crimes for years and while he was supposedly being monitored while out on bond? What would prevent him from getting another burner phone, another VPN, and resuming his online life and activities if he lived at home?
Unsurprisingly, the government appealed the sentence, claiming that Judge Brinkema abused her discretion and the sentence was unreasonable. As part of their appeal, they cited a case with very similar circumstances (United States v. Zuk). As DataBreaches noted at the time, the government was appealing Fitzpatrick’s sentence to the same appellate court that had vacated Zuk’s lenient sentence and had remanded that one for re-sentencing. Zuk appeared to be a strong precedent for the court considering the appeal of Fitzpatrick’s sentence.
Oral arguments were heard on October 29, 2024, and the court issued its opinion and order on January 21, 2025. The heart of the matter is concisely identified in this paragraph from the decision:
When selecting Fitzpatrick’s sentence, the district court relied only on his history and personal characteristics — his autism and youth — even though it acknowledged in passing the seriousness of his crimes. The court also mentioned briefly the need to protect the public when it imposed a 20-year term of supervised release, stating that such supervised release would “give[] us the best opportunity to try to protect the community.” (Emphasis added). But it never explained why supervised release was adequate, especially in light of Fitzpatrick’s repeated violations of his conditions of presentence release. And, most glaringly, the court never addressed, as required, how his sentence “achieve[s]” respect for the law, punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation, all of which are core purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3551(a), 3553(a)(2).
The sentence was therefore vacated and the case remanded to the lower court for re-sentencing consistent with the principles set forth in the decision.
Comment:
Did “Pom” screw himself by violating bond and his conduct? It seems that he really did — by not adhering to the restrictions he had agreed to, he demonstrated that he could not be trusted to stick to a less restrictive environment or plan. That he laughed and lied to others and allegedly showed no remorse only added to the likelihood of a sterner sentence or a sentence in a more restrictive environment. But even if he had not done those things, the seriousness of his crimes and the requirements that sentencing accomplish certain goals, seemed to require incarceration and not just supervised release.
But Judge Brinkema’s concerns about his mental health and need to get appropriate treatment were not without merit. And the appellate court did not say she was wrong to be concerned. What they said was that she still needed to consider the other purposes of a sentence and give those other required factors the appropriate weight. And that, the appellate judges held, she had not done, making her sentence unreasonable and an abuse of her discretion.
So Pom will be re-sentenced in February. It is not clear if he is still out on bond or if he will be detained until re-sentencing. There has been nothing on the docket about that as of publication.
Update: On February 19, Fitzpatrick’s resentencing was scheduled for June 3, 2025 at 09:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.
Ha Ha!