Bomb-Making Instruction Prosecutions
1) Legal framework — the core federal statute and how prosecutors use it
18 U.S.C. § 842(p) (added in the 1990s) criminalizes (among other things) teaching, demonstrating, or distributing information on the construction or use of explosives, destructive devices, or WMDs when the defendant (A) intends that the information be used to commit a federal crime of violence, or (B) knows that the person to whom the information is provided intends to use it to commit such a crime. That provision was enacted to cover “how‑to” bomb instructions shared in person or online.
Prosecutors often charge §842(p) together with other crimes when the facts support them: attempted murder, conspiracy, possession of unregistered weapons, making explosive devices, material support to terrorists, or terrorism enhancements under the sentencing guidelines if the instruction is tied to violence against law enforcement or civil authorities. The ATF and FBI work closely with U.S. Attorney’s Offices on these matters.
First Amendment issues arise (speech vs. actionable instruction). Courts and commentators recognize a balance: abstract discussion or historical description may be protected, but teaching or demonstrating with the intent or knowledge that the listener will use the information in a violent federal crime is criminal. That statutory line has been litigated on overbreadth/First Amendment grounds.
2) How prosecutions are built — common evidence and tactics
Online records and posts (social‑media posts, chatroom messages, uploaded manuals/videos).
Undercover agents and confidential human sources (CHSs) who request instruction or who present as radicalized actors; recorded conversations are decisive.
Physical manuals, DVDs, or email attachments found in defendant’s possession or on devices.
Seized materials and devices (IED components, detonators, pipe‑bombs) that corroborate the intent to enable violence.
Affiliations (membership in violent extremist groups) and explicit statements of target/intended violent outcome increase sentencing exposure and may trigger terrorism‑related enhancements.
Examples below show these building blocks in real prosecutions. (See case citations that follow.)
3) Select cases — detailed (facts, legal theory, outcome, significance)
A. Christopher Arthur — Tackleberry / “bomb‑making instructor” (convicted & sentenced 2024)
Facts: Army/Guard veteran Christopher Arthur ran a small security/“training” outfit (Tackleberry Solutions) that produced manuals and videos teaching improvised explosives and booby traps. Investigators connected Arthur’s manuals to a violent extremist who engaged officers in a fatal shootout; Arthur later provided explicit explosive‑construction instructions to a confidential human source.
Charges & Legal Theory: Jury convicted Arthur of teaching another person how to make and use explosives knowing the person intended to use the instruction to murder/attempt to murder federal law enforcement (counts under 18 U.S.C. §842(p)/explosives statutes), plus weapons possession counts. Prosecutors sought — and the court applied — domestic‑terrorism‑related sentencing enhancements.
Outcome: In May 2024 Arthur was sentenced to 300 months (25 years). The government emphasized the intent to facilitate violence against law enforcement; the defense argued the materials were for “survival” or self‑defense. Arthur appealed constitutional issues including overbreadth of §842(p).
Why it matters: High sentence and the terrorism enhancement show how the statute is used when instruction is coupled with a specific intent to enable violent attacks (especially against police/federal agents). The case also shows how manuals/videos + an affirmative outreach to a CHS can lead to major federal convictions.
B. Tayyab Tahir Ismail — online posts with intent to further violent jihad (sentenced 2019)
Facts: Ismail posted step‑by‑step bomb construction instructions in social‑media “rooms” that included members who advocated violent jihad. The posts included concrete instructions and were visible to others in the extremist‑leaning groups.
Charges & Legal Theory: Pleaded guilty to distributing information pertaining to explosives and destructive devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §842(p)(2). Prosecutors relied on the evidence that the postings were intended to further violent acts (and occurred in extremist discussion spaces).
Outcome: Sentenced to 240 months (20 years) in July 2019. The Southern District of Florida press release describes the postings and the extremist group context.
Why it matters: Ismail’s long sentence reflects how courts treat distribution of operational bomb instructions in an extremist context — especially when the poster participates in rooms that praise violence. It illustrates the use of §842(p) against online disseminators who post “how‑to” documents into radical forums.
C. Beau Daniel Merryman — Atomwaffen affiliate: distribution to undercover agents (plea & sentence 2021–2022)
Facts: Merryman communicated online and provided detailed instructions about building pipe bombs; his contacts included individuals with extremist ties and covert federal sources. He pleaded guilty to distribution of information relating to explosives/destructive devices.
Charges & Legal Theory: Plea to distribution of explosive‑related information (§842(p)). The government’s proffer shows online chats and exchanges where Merryman gave operational guidance.
Outcome: Merryman pleaded guilty in Nov. 2021 and was sentenced in March 2022 to 41 months in federal prison.
Why it matters: Case shows (1) targeted enforcement against members or associates of violent extremist groups, (2) how undercover/CHS interactions are used to prove knowledge and intent, and (3) that sentences vary depending on the defendant’s role, prior history, and the extent of the danger.
D. Jarrett William Smith — Army soldier (charged 2019; sentenced 2020)
Facts: Smith (a soldier stationed at Fort Riley) discussed on Facebook how to build cellphone‑triggered explosives, vehicle bombs, and other devices; he spoke about targets and sought “radicals” to join violent activity. Undercover FBI contact recorded his instructions and expressed intent to attack.
Charges & Legal Theory: Charged with distributing information related to explosives and WMDs (18 U.S.C. §842(p)). The government emphasized the soldier’s technical knowledge and the viability of the instructions.
Outcome: Smith pleaded guilty and was sentenced in August 2020 to 30 months in federal prison followed by supervised release.
Why it matters: This case highlights prosecutions where a person with military training distributes concrete explosive‑making instructions online and shows how the military background and explicit target talk affect prosecutorial posture and sentence. Department of Justice+1
E. Noelle Velentzas & co‑defendant Asia Siddiqui — New York convictions involving instruction for violent federal crime (convictions/sentencing 2019–2021)
Facts: Velentzas was convicted of teaching/distributing information about making and using explosives and WMDs in furtherance of a planned federal crime of violence; co‑defendant Asia Siddiqui earlier pleaded guilty and received a lengthy sentence. The government presented evidence that the instruction was concrete and intended to further violent acts.
Charges & Legal Theory: Convictions under 18 U.S.C. §842(p) for teaching or distributing bomb‑making instruction in furtherance of a planned federal crime of violence. The record shows the government tying the information to intended violent activity.
Outcome: Velentzas was sentenced to 198 months (16.5 years) in 2021; Siddiqui previously received 15 years after pleading guilty.
Why it matters: Reinforces the point that §842(p) is used to prosecute people who actively teach or distribute instructions when those instructions are linked to intended violent acts; courts impose substantial custodial sentences.
F. Other illustrative DOJ actions (distribution / possession / related prosecutions)
DOJ press releases show multiple districts prosecuting distributors of bomb‑making instructions and people who possess or manufacture explosive devices; sentences vary widely depending on intended use, whether the defendant actually built bombs, and whether violence was planned or carried out. Examples include other distribution/possession prosecutions in 2019–2024 and recent regional cases where large quantities of IEDs were seized. These cases show the spectrum from lower‑level distributors to organizers/instructors who enabled violent plots.
4) Sentencing patterns and aggravating factors
Sentences range widely — from a couple of years (e.g., ~30–41 months) for distribution without completed violence to decades (15–25+ years) when the instruction is shown to be tied to a planned murder, attempt on law‑enforcement, or organized extremist violence. (See Arthur, Velentzas, Ismail, Merryman, Smith above.)
Aggravating factors increasing sentences: (a) explicit target selection (law enforcement, public officials), (b) operational (step‑by‑step) instructions, (c) distribution to or coordination with extremist groups, (d) actual possession/manufacture of explosives, and (e) evidence the recipient intended to commit violence. In some cases prosecutors seek “domestic terrorism” enhancements when statutory criteria are met.
5) Constitutional and defense issues that commonly arise
Overbreadth / First Amendment: Defendants sometimes argue §842(p) is unconstitutionally overbroad because it can reach protected speech (e.g., academic discussion or historical explanation). Courts assess whether the statute reaches only speech that is intentionally provided to facilitate violent crime (which is more likely to be unprotected). The Arthur appeal paperwork shows these arguments are actively litigated.
Entrapment / CHS concerns: When prosecutions rely on undercover agents or confidential human sources, defendants may raise entrapment or argue inducement. Courts examine who initiated contact, the defendant’s predisposition, and whether the agent merely provided an opportunity or improperly coerced or instigated the crime. (Several convictions noted above involved CHS interactions; defendants have sometimes appealed on entrapment grounds.)
Mens rea and knowledge: §842(p) requires proof of intent (to further a federal violent crime) or knowledge that the recipient intended to use the instructions for a violent federal crime. That mens rea element is critical and is often demonstrated by the recipient’s statements, group membership, or explicit target talk in online chats.
6) Practical takeaways for practitioners and policymakers
Prosecutors: rely on chat logs, uploaded files, CHS recordings, and seized manuals/devices to prove knowledge/intent. When instruction is connected to an intended violent act, federal authorities pursue substantial sentences and terrorism enhancements.
Defense counsel: focus on distinguishing protected speech, challenging intent/knowledge, attacking the reliability/credibility of undercover contacts, and arguing lack of predisposition or that the communication was academic rather than operational. Overbreadth challenges and entrapment defenses are routine in serious cases.
Policy: law seeks to prevent violent misuse of operational instructions while avoiding undue chill on legitimate scholarly or historical speech — the statutory language therefore targets intentional facilitation of violent federal crimes. Congressional and DOJ guidance and CRS analyses discuss this balance.
7) Sources for the cases and statutory background (selected)
DOJ press release: “Bombmaking instructor … sentenced” (Christopher Arthur, Eastern District of NC).
AP reporting and DOJ coverage on Christopher Arthur’s conviction/sentence.
DOJ press release: Tayyab Tahir Ismail (Southern District of Florida) — 20‑year sentence for online bomb‑making instructions
DOJ press releases: Beau Daniel Merryman (plea and sentence, Eastern District of Texas).
DOJ press release and sentencing notice: Jarrett William Smith (former Fort Riley soldier; plea and sentence).
DOJ press release: Noelle Velentzas (conviction and sentence for teaching/distributing explosives instructions).
Congressional Research Service and ATF summaries on §842(p) and explosives law (statutory background and First Amendment context).
Short summary (one paragraph)
Federal law (18 U.S.C. §842(p)) criminalizes teaching, demonstrating, or distributing bomb‑making instructions when the defendant intends the information be used to commit a federal violent crime or knows the recipient intends such use. Prosecutors combine §842(p) with conspiracy, weapons, and terrorism‑related counts; they rely heavily on online posts, manuals, and undercover recordings to prove intent/knowledge. Sentences vary from a few years to multiple decades depending on whether the instruction was operational, targeted at law enforcement or the public, or tied to extremist actors — as shown in the Arthur, Ismail, Merryman, Smith, and Velentzas prosecutions cited above.
RELATED Blog
comments