The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that a California man who had been sentenced to 14 years in prison for firing a laser at two helicopters did not deserve that sentence. After hearing oral arguments earlier this month, the court reversed the lower court’s decision in his conviction of one of the counts, and sent the case back for re-sentencing on the remaining one.

In this case, known as United States v. Rodriguez, the defendant was found guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 39A, a law specifically dealing with laser pointers, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. But the court overturned the conviction of 18 U.S.C. § 32, a law set up to punish those who attempt to destroy aircraft or aircraft facilities.

Attorneys believe that this was the highest such sentence ever issued for perpetrating a laser strike. By comparison, a man in New Zealand recently received 12 months of supervision and no prison time for nearly the same offense.

Last month, the same American appellate court ruled that a Los Angeles defendant on a similar offense should get no more than 10 months confinement after pleading guilty to pointing the laser at a small aircraft as it approached the Burbank Airport in 2012.

The appellate judges had unusually blunt language:

The evidence clearly shows that Rodriguez was rightfully convicted of aiming the laser pointer at a helicopter (§ 39A). However, there is insufficient evidence that he willfully attempted to interfere with the safe flight of the helicopter (§ 32(a)(5)). Rather, the evidence showed that he was attempting to see how far his laser would go at night—a stupid thing to do, yes, but there is no evidence that he was trying to interfere with the pilot. Section 39A is designed for knuckleheads like him. On the other hand, 18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(5) is designed for both the Osama bin Ladens of the world—people trying to bring down a plane, intending to cause harm—and those who are aware that their actions are dangerous and could harm others, but just don’t care. The failure to recognize this distinction is to fail to appreciate that Congress saw fit to create two different crimes, one more serious than the other, for two different types of offenders. About a year after Rodriguez’s conviction became final in district court, we decided United States v. Gardenhire, 784 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 2015). On very similar facts—a case in which another knucklehead aimed a laser pointer at a passing airplane just for the fun of it—we held, for the purposes of the applicable sentencing guidelines, that there was no evidence “that Gardenhire acted recklessly when he aimed his laser beam at the aircraft. The record is devoid of evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, that Gardenhire was aware of the risk created by his conduct.” Id. at 1280.

Neither Rodriguez’ attorney, Carolyn Del Phillips, nor the federal prosecutor in the case, Karen Escobar, immediately responded to Ars’ request for comment.

UPDATE Thursday 11:36am CT: Escobar e-mailed Ars to say: " We are, however, awaiting the Department [of Justice]’s review of the decision to determine whether an appeal should be taken."

Del Phillips also wrote that she thought the result was: "A well reasoned opinion resulting in justice for Mr. Rodriguez."