Affirmation of Presumptive §3553(a) Consideration and Deferential Sentencing Review in United States v. Ullman

Introduction

In United States v. Ullman, 24-987-cr (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2025) (summary order), the Second Circuit affirmed a 300-month prison sentence for Thomas Ullman, who pled guilty to sexually exploiting a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Ullman challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence on appeal. The key issues were (1) whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to explicitly address the § 3553(a)(6) sentencing factor on unwarranted disparities, and (2) whether a 300-month sentence was substantively unreasonable under the “abuse of discretion” standard. The government appellee was represented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York; Ullman was represented by the Federal Public Defender in Albany.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit, relying on deferential “abuse‐of‐discretion” review and plain‐error standards, affirmed the district court’s sentence. On procedural review, the Court held that absent a clear record to the contrary, it presumes a sentencing court has considered all relevant § 3553(a) factors—even if it does not recite each one by name. On substantive review, the panel found the below-Guidelines, 300-month sentence well within the range of reasonable outcomes given the gravity of Ullman’s offenses (production of child sexual imagery from over 200 minors), the quantity of images and videos, and the court’s findings on danger to the public.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018): Establishes deferential review of preserved sentencing errors under “abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2020): Applies plain error review to unpreserved procedural reasonableness challenges.
United States v. Rosa, 957 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2020): Holds that absent evidence to the contrary, a district court is presumed to have considered all § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Pruitt, 813 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2016) & Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Detail procedural reasonableness requirements.
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) & United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009): Frame substantive reasonableness as a “backstop” for sentences that would otherwise undermine the administration of justice.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court began by identifying the applicable review standards:

Procedural Reasonableness: Because Ullman did not object at sentencing to the alleged § 3553(a)(6) oversight, review is for plain error. Under Marcus, the appellant must show an obvious error affecting substantial rights and the fairness of the proceeding.
Substantive Reasonableness: Even if preserved, the sentence must be within the range of permissible outcomes when considering all § 3553(a) factors, with broad deference to the district court’s judgment.

Procedurally, the panel applied the presumption from Rosa that a district court has considered every § 3553(a) factor unless the record shows otherwise. Ullman offered no evidence to rebut this presumption—no affidavits, comparable sentencing data demonstrating “unwarranted disparity,” or remarks from the court indicating disregard for § 3553(a)(6).

Substantively, the Court emphasized that a substantial downward variance (60 months below the 360-month Guidelines range) is well within its discretion when aggravated factors are substantial: over 200 minor victims, 2,500 illicit images, and a demonstrated propensity to “dominate” underage girls. The Court reiterated that only “exceptional cases” justify overriding a district court’s sentence as substantively unreasonable.

3. Impact

United States v. Ullman reinforces two significant sentencing principles in the Second Circuit:

Presumptive Consideration of § 3553(a) Factors: Lower courts need not mechanically recite each § 3553(a) factor if the record as a whole indicates the court considered them. This presumption streamlines sentencing hearings and reduces boilerplate recitations, focusing appellate review on affirmative indications of error.
Deferential Review of Substantive Reasonableness: Even in high-stakes child exploitation cases, substantial downward variances remain subject to deference unless the imposed sentence falls outside the wide band of permissible outcomes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 3553(a) Factors: The statutory provisions that a sentencing judge must “consider,” including the nature of the offense, the defendant’s history, deterrence, rehabilitation needs, and consistency across similar cases.
Plain Error Review: A highly deferential standard applicable when a defendant fails to object at trial or sentencing. To succeed, a defendant must show an obvious mistake that affected the outcome and the integrity of proceedings.
Abuse-of-Discretion Standard: Appellate courts will not overturn a sentencing decision unless it lies outside the permissible range of decisions based on the facts and law. The goal is to respect the district court’s institutional advantages in assessing credibility and weighing complex factors.
Downward Variance: A sentence below the Guidelines range. District courts may grant variances to address individual circumstances, such as mitigating history or policy considerations.

Conclusion

United States v. Ullman crystallizes the Second Circuit’s commitment to deferential, principled sentencing review. It confirms that:

District courts enjoy a presumption that they have considered all § 3553(a) factors in the absence of demonstrable contrary evidence.
Substantial downward variances remain presumptively reasonable unless they fall outside the broad range of permissible decisions.

The decision underscores the balance between appellate oversight and district court discretion, shaping future sentencing challenges and reinforcing uniformity in applying the federal sentencing statutes.