A 55-year-old Everett man was sentenced to five years in federal prison earlier this month for three felonies, including detonating a pipe bomb that destroyed a neighbor’s car in a racially motivated attack.
Steven Goldstine pleaded guilty in September 2025 to unlawful possession of a destructive device, unlawful possession of ammunition, and unlawful possession of a firearm.
The investigation revealed that on December 31, 2024, Everett police responded to an explosion in a car at an apartment complex. The victims, who had previous conflicts with Goldstine, reported receiving a voicemail containing racial slurs referencing the explosion.
Video surveillance linked Goldstine to the crime, and a subsequent search of his home uncovered more than 700 rounds of ammunition. Goldstine was prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition due to prior felony convictions and had a history of violence, including pointing a gun at protesters in 2020.
In a statement on December 15, U.S. District Judge John H. Chun described the case as involving “serious and quite frankly horrifying conduct,” adding that the racist statements Goldstine made to his neighbors constituted “disgusting conduct.”
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division stated: “Fueled by hatred for a neighbor’s race, the defendant used a pipe bomb to cause an explosion and destroy property.”
Prosecutors had sought a 78-month sentence, citing Goldstine’s “deeply troubling history of violence.”
Judge Chun also ordered three years of supervised release following prison, with one year of electronic location monitoring.
The New Year’s Eve timing of the bombing added terror to what should have been a celebratory night. The victims heard an explosion destroy their car as the calendar turned to 2025, then received a voicemail filled with racial slurs taking credit for the attack.
The voicemail represents evidence of both the crime and the racial motivation behind it. Goldstine didn’t just blow up a car. He wanted his victims to know he did it and why he did it, using the most offensive language possible.
The previous conflicts between Goldstine and the victims suggest an escalating pattern of harassment that culminated in violence. Neighbors don’t typically resort to explosives after a single disagreement. This bombing likely represented the endpoint of sustained animosity.
The video surveillance that linked Goldstine to the crime probably showed him placing the device or approaching the vehicle around the time of the explosion. Modern apartment complexes often have cameras covering parking areas, creating digital evidence that proves decisive in investigations.
The 700 rounds of ammunition discovered during the search of Goldstine’s home represents a substantial stockpile, particularly for someone legally prohibited from possessing any ammunition at all. That quantity suggests either preparation for sustained conflict or simply disregard for the law.
The prior felony convictions that prohibited Goldstine from possessing firearms or ammunition weren’t disclosed in detail, but any felony conviction triggers federal restrictions. The fact that he possessed both guns and ammunition despite those restrictions demonstrates willful violation of federal law.
The 2020 incident where Goldstine pointed a gun at protesters shows a pattern of using firearms to threaten or intimidate people he disagreed with. That history made the bombing less surprising and more consistent with his established behavior.
Judge Chun’s description of the conduct as “horrifying” and “disgusting” reflects judicial recognition that this wasn’t simply a property crime but an act of racially motivated terrorism against neighbors.
The Civil Rights Division’s involvement signals federal authorities viewed this as a hate crime, not just illegal possession of explosives. The racial motivation elevated the case to civil rights prosecution.
The 78-month sentence prosecutors requested would have meant six and a half years, compared to the five years imposed. The difference suggests Judge Chun found some mitigating factor or simply disagreed about the appropriate punishment level.
The three years of supervised release means Goldstine will face restrictions and monitoring for three years after completing his five-year prison term. The year of electronic monitoring will track his location constantly, ensuring he doesn’t approach the victims.
