I'm not so sure. I'm not going spelunking through the entire trial transcript. But from the sentencing, it appears that the term 'pipe bomb' appears only once. To wit:

"I think one factor that the Court can take into consideration or at least should consider is there were some pipe bombs involved in this case as well that were not charged and are not incorporated in the conduct that's before the Court..."
(emphasis added)

To me, this looks as if the matter of any pipe bombs were never even discussed in trial -- evidence entered, testimony revealing, etc -- and that the prosecution was allowed to get a sideswipe freebie in unchallenged.

Of course, 'pipe bomb' is a pretty specific term of art. I'd be curious to know what the legal definition of such was -- if indeed any evidence referring to such was ever entered into trial. But it apparently was not.

Until someone points me at anything within the trial transcript itself indicating evidence of dealing in pipe bombs, I'm inclined to accept Roger at his word.

As a sidebar, I find it kind of funny how this here crypto community is absorbed by long-past actions of various parties that have absolutely nothing to do with any crypto topic whatsoever.