It was not clear from the article whether the trial was in a federal court, and it has been a while since I have done anything in federal court. However, as I recall there was something called sentencing guidelines. Following trial an investigation was performed examining the injury to victims as well as the the positive contibutions to society made by the defendant. The injuries to victims computed to so many negative points and the defendant's posititive contributions computed to so many positive points. The positive points were deducted from the negative points, and the total of the negative points remaining computed to so many months in prison.

There was a time when the guidelines were mandatory, and federal judges had no discretion in sentencing the defendant to the number of months in prison required by the sentencing guide lines. The federal judges were not happy with it. It is my understanding that the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, but are now advisory, and  allow judges some discretion.

So the defendants in the article can certainly make an argument for leniency, but I think a case can be made for injury to the victims at the sentencing hearing They may even be given a chance to be heard, and explain the injurious  impact on their lives. If I were the judge I would throw the book at the defendants, and give them the maximum...kind of like Judge Roy Bean.