Appeals court vacates sentence for Canadian who shot at North Dakota substations
The 8th Circuit found the judge erred in applying a terrorist motive enhancement and remanded for resentencing.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 2:51 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 2, 2026, 2:51 p.m. ETFirst report
Appeals court vacates sentence for Canadian who shot at North Dakota substations
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the 25-year prison sentence of Cameron Smith, a Canadian national, and remanded the case for resentencing, according to a litigation release reported by inforum.com. The court found that the judge erred in applying a terrorist motive enhancement.
Smith had been convicted in a criminal case for shooting at electrical substations and spray-painting environmental symbols, actions that prosecutors said were intended to coerce civilian populations into implementing climate change measures. The appeals court's ruling did not address the conviction itself but only the sentencing.
The case remains open as it returns to the lower court for resentencing. The court also noted that more than $2 million in restitution was ordered, though the appeals court's decision focused on the sentencing error.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 18:51current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 18:52current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.