Arguably, the fault there lies with the activist Federal judge who failed to follow the law when he initially sentenced them to a prison term well below the sentence prescribed by law.
That could be argued. However, the judge, in his sentencing, said (I believe correctly) that following the sentencing requirements would have been cruel and unusual punishment.
In any case, by failing to resolve this before the sentences had been completed, I believe the federal government lost the authority to legitimately change that judge's sentencing decision. Changing it after they have been freed looks cruel and vindictive. Sending someone to prison for five years for a couple of controlled burns that reached a total of 140 acres of federal land is so disproportionate that it should do more than just raise eyebrows.
I wonder what the judge would have done if he did not believe he had the authority to impose a sentence less than five years. Would that have changed the outcome of the trial? For example, could the judge have told the jurors that a finding of "guilty" would require a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, and if so would the ranchers have been acquitted?
So you think you know better than the judge? Have you read the background on Amanda Marshall? Do you even know who she is?