Age-Related Recidivism Must Be Raised at Sentencing; Within-Guidelines Life Sentences for Sex Crimes Survive Eighth Amendment Challenge

Case: United States v. Arisknight Arkin-Everett Winfree (No. 24-1911)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date: November 6, 2025

Panel: Judges Griffin, Thapar, and Mathis (Opinion by Judge Griffin)

Publication Status: Not recommended for publication (unpublished; persuasive but not binding precedent in the Sixth Circuit)

Introduction

This appeal arises from a life sentence imposed on Arisknight Arkin-Everett Winfree following his nolo contendere plea to kidnapping, coercion and enticement, attempted coercion and enticement, and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. The conduct involved luring young women—including a non-English-speaking Italian victim—through a fraudulent au pair advertisement, sexual assault, and the exploitation of two minors.

On appeal, Winfree presented three principal arguments: (1) his life sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because courts should account for declining recidivism rates among sex offenders as they age; (2) the life sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the age-related recidivism argument at sentencing.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that because Winfree did not present recidivism data at sentencing or object under the Bostic procedure, review was for plain error and no error occurred; that a within-Guidelines life sentence for these offenses is not substantively unreasonable; that the sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment; and that any ineffective-assistance claim should be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than on direct appeal.

Summary of the Opinion

Procedural reasonableness: No plain error. The district court was not required to sua sponte consider age-related sex-offender recidivism rates where the defense did not present such evidence or argue the point at sentencing. The court emphasized that it “will not find plain error based on factual information the parties never provided.”
Substantive reasonableness: The life sentence—within the Guidelines for offense level 43, criminal history category I—was supported by the seriousness of the conduct, victim harms, doubts about genuine remorse, and the need to protect the public. The court applied the presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences.
Eighth Amendment: No violation. The sentence fell within the statutory maximum and the Guidelines contemplated a life term for the gravity of the offenses. Under circuit precedent, such a sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment absent an “extreme disparity.”
Ineffective assistance: The court declined to address the claim on direct appeal, directing that it be pursued via § 2255 to develop a factual record.

Detailed Analysis

Factual and Procedural Background

The record details a calculated scheme. Winfree posted a fraudulent au pair advertisement to lure young women, including A.S. (18) and S.D. (19, from Italy). S.D. was handcuffed, gagged, sexually assaulted, and recorded; Winfree discussed keeping her and, according to a co-conspirator, contemplated killing her before releasing her at a bus station after taking her money and disabling her phone. Separately, Winfree exploited two 17-year-old minors (MV1 and MV2), soliciting explicit images and arranging sexual activity, while distributing images to a friend. His social media showed outreach to “hundreds if not thousands” of women, many students.

Winfree entered a nolo contendere plea to:

Kidnapping: 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) (Count 1)
Coercion and Enticement: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) (Count 2)
Attempted Coercion and Enticement: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) (Count 3)
Sexual Exploitation of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Counts 4 and 5)

The district court calculated a total offense level of 43, criminal history category I, denied a downward variance request premised on mental health, and imposed life imprisonment on Count 1, 240 months on Counts 2 and 3, and 360 months on Counts 4 and 5, all concurrent.

Standards of Review

Sentencing reasonableness: Abuse-of-discretion framework for both procedural and substantive review (Gall v. United States).
Plain error: Because defense counsel did not object after the Bostic inquiry, the court applied plain-error review to procedural and Eighth Amendment claims.
Presumption of reasonableness: A within-Guidelines sentence carries a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness (United States v. Vonner).

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Provides the dual inquiry into procedural and substantive reasonableness and emphasizes deference to district court sentencing decisions. The panel used Gall’s framing and reiterated that appellate courts should not substitute their judgment simply because they might have chosen a different sentence.
United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2012): Cited for the abuse-of-discretion standard in sentence review.
United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2004): Establishes the Bostic question requiring counsel to state any unresolved objections after sentence pronouncement. Its satisfaction here triggered plain-error review.
United States v. Souders, 747 F. App’x 269 (6th Cir. 2018): Key support for the principle that appellate courts will not find plain error based on factual information never presented to the district court.
United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2009): Reinforces the rationale for plain-error review—ensuring the district court has the first opportunity to correct alleged error.
United States v. Roser, 529 F. App’x 450 (6th Cir. 2013) and United States v. Walls, 546 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2008): Support the proposition that a court does not abuse discretion by failing to consider an unargued factor.
United States v. Robinson, 892 F.3d 209 (6th Cir. 2018) and United States v. Cunningham, 669 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012): Outline what constitutes substantive unreasonableness, e.g., reliance on impermissible factors or giving unreasonable weight to a factor.
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc): Establishes the presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences, utilized here to affirm the life term.
United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007): Emphasizes due deference to a district court’s § 3553(a) application.
United States v. Young, 847 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2017): Supports plain-error review for unpreserved constitutional challenges at sentencing.
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983); United States v. Layne, 324 F.3d 464 (6th Cir. 2003); United States v. Moore, 643 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2011): Provide the Eighth Amendment proportionality framework and legislative deference; in this circuit, sentences within statutory maximums generally withstand Eighth Amendment challenges.
United States v. Abdulmutallab, 739 F.3d 891 (6th Cir. 2014); United States v. Herrick, 512 F. App’x 534 (6th Cir. 2013): Reinforce that when the Guidelines contemplate the offense gravity—here recommending life—an Eighth Amendment challenge “must fail.”
United States v. Angeles, 484 F. App’x 27 (6th Cir. 2012): Kidnapping cases upholding life sentences where the Sentencing Commission deemed life reasonable for the crimes, cited to reject the Eighth Amendment claim.
United States v. Griffiths, 846 F. App’x 384 (6th Cir. 2021): Rejects expansion of Eighth Amendment sentencing relief without ties to text, history, or existing jurisprudence—used to explain why the age-related recidivism theory did not carry constitutional weight here.
United States v. Ledbetter, 929 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2019); United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 363 (6th Cir. 2003): Provide the Sixth Circuit’s consistent practice of deferring ineffective-assistance claims to § 2255 proceedings.

The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1) Procedural Reasonableness

The pivotal procedural issue was preservation. The district court complied with Bostic, asking for any unresolved objections after pronouncing the sentence; defense counsel did not object. Thus, the Sixth Circuit reviewed for plain error. Under that standard, the panel held there was no error—plain or otherwise—because (a) Winfree never introduced empirical recidivism evidence or made a targeted argument about age-related recidivism at sentencing, and (b) a district court’s failure to consider an unargued factor is not an abuse of discretion. The opinion quotes Souders to underscore a firm rule: appellate courts will not fault a district court for not considering factual material that was never presented.

Put simply, if a defendant wants the court to weigh age-related recidivism, the defendant must present that evidence and argument at sentencing.

2) Substantive Reasonableness

The panel applied the presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences under Vonner. The district court grounded its sentence in the seriousness and cruelty of the conduct (describing the offenses as at the “serious end of the spectrum”), the lasting harm to victims, skepticism about remorse, and the need to protect the public. Although the defense pointed to mental health and asserted a statistically lower reoffense risk with age, the court explained that the need to protect the public is one of several § 3553(a) factors; none compelled a lower sentence here.

The opinion affirms that district courts may acknowledge mental health diagnoses (here, narcissistic personality disorder rather than bipolar disorder) yet conclude that the record does not justify a downward variance given the offense gravity and other § 3553(a) considerations.

3) Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment argument rested on the theory that a life sentence is excessive in light of age-related declines in sex-offender recidivism and the defendant’s youth and untreated mental illnesses at the time of the offenses. The panel, applying plain error, rejected the claim. It relied on the circuit’s established approach: when the sentence is within the statutory maximum and the Guidelines account for the offense gravity—here recommending life—an Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge fails absent an “extreme disparity.” The court cited Abdulmutallab and related authorities and noted prior Sixth Circuit approvals of life sentences in comparable kidnapping contexts (Angeles).

4) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The court declined to adjudicate the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. Following standard practice, such claims require factual development best suited to a § 2255 proceeding. The opinion provides no ruling on the merits of whether counsel should have presented age-related recidivism data, leaving that question to potential collateral review.

Treatment of Mental Health Evidence

Winfree underwent multiple evaluations; the Bureau of Prisons ruled out bipolar disorder and diagnosed narcissistic personality disorder. The defense sought a downward variance premised on mental health and current medication. The district court accepted the diagnosis but found the history insufficient to warrant a variance given the offense conduct. The appellate court found no error in that weighing. This reinforces that recognition of mental illness does not compel mitigation where offense severity, victimization, and public protection needs are pronounced.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Nolo contendere (no contest): A plea in which the defendant does not admit guilt but accepts conviction. For sentencing and conviction purposes, it functions like a guilty plea.
Procedural vs. substantive reasonableness: Procedural concerns how the sentence was reached (correct Guidelines calculation, consideration of statutory factors, explanation). Substantive concerns whether the sentence is within the range of permissible outcomes given the facts and § 3553(a).
Bostic question: In the Sixth Circuit, judges ask post-sentencing whether parties have any objections not previously raised. Failure to object then triggers stringent “plain error” review on appeal.
Plain error review: A four-prong test: there must be an error, it must be plain (clear), it must affect substantial rights, and it must seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. It is difficult to satisfy.
§ 3553(a) factors: The statute guiding sentencing. It requires courts to consider, among other things, offense seriousness, deterrence, protection of the public, just punishment, and the defendant’s history and characteristics.
Within-Guidelines presumption: In the Sixth Circuit, a sentence inside the advisory Guideline range is presumed reasonable on appeal, though the presumption can be rebutted with persuasive evidence.
Variance vs. departure: A “variance” is a judge’s discretionary sentence outside the advisory range based on § 3553(a). A “departure” is an adjustment within the Guidelines system based on Guideline criteria. Here, the defense sought a variance.
Eighth Amendment proportionality: The Constitution prohibits “grossly disproportionate” punishments. In practice, especially for adult non-capital sentences within statutory maxima and contemplated by the Guidelines, challenges rarely succeed.
Concurrent sentences: Multiple sentences served at the same time (as opposed to consecutively, one after the other). Winfree’s terms are concurrent, with the life sentence controlling.

Practical Implications and Impact

Key Takeaways for Future Cases

Empirical recidivism arguments must be preserved: Defendants wishing to rely on age-related recidivism declines must present empirical studies, expert testimony, or other evidence at sentencing and explicitly tie them to § 3553(a) (especially § 3553(a)(2)(C), protection of the public). Failure to do so forecloses appellate relief under plain-error review.
District courts are not required to sua sponte canvass social science: Absent a defense submission, courts need not independently raise and analyze general recidivism literature. The opinion reaffirms that unargued factors need not be addressed.
Within-Guidelines life sentences remain durable: For kidnapping and child-exploitation offenses at offense level 43, life is often the recommended Guideline sentence. Appellate courts will typically uphold such sentences when the district court articulates standard § 3553(a) reasons.
Eighth Amendment challenges face steep headwinds: In the Sixth Circuit, a sentence within statutory limits and aligned with the Guidelines’ assessment of offense gravity is unlikely to be deemed cruel and unusual, even where the defendant invokes aging and recidivism trends.
Mental health mitigation is case-specific and not dispositive: Recognition of a mental health diagnosis (here, narcissistic personality disorder) does not oblige a variance where the offense conduct is egregious and public protection concerns are acute.
Preservation through the Bostic question is critical: Defense counsel should be prepared to state remaining objections after sentence announcement to avoid plain-error constraints on appeal.
Ineffective assistance claims belong in § 2255: Claims about counsel’s failure to present empirical evidence should be pursued in collateral proceedings where the record can be developed.

Potential Defense Strategies Post-Winfree

Proffer peer-reviewed, offense-specific recidivism data; retain experts to explain aging effects and treatment efficacy; and expressly link the analysis to § 3553(a) factors, including specific monitoring or release conditions that mitigate risk.
Document and argue tailored mental health treatment plans, showing nexus between treatment and reduced risk, while addressing the court’s public-protection concerns.
Make a clear, contemporaneous record at sentencing and respond to the Bostic inquiry with any unaddressed objections, including the court’s treatment of recidivism evidence.

Limits and Scope

Unpublished status: The opinion is not precedential in the Sixth Circuit, but it is consistent with and anchored in binding precedent. It is likely to be persuasive in similar contexts.
No categorical rule against considering recidivism: The court did not reject age-related recidivism evidence in principle; it held the district court committed no error for not considering it sua sponte. Properly presented, such evidence can still be weighed under § 3553(a).
Record-driven outcomes: The affirmance turned on the record as made (or not made). A different record—with robust empirical submissions and expert testimony—could lead to a different exercise of district court discretion, even if the appellate standard remains deferential.

Conclusion

United States v. Winfree reinforces several durable sentencing doctrines in the Sixth Circuit. Most notably, it clarifies that defendants cannot rely on appellate courts to inject empirical considerations—like age-related sex-offender recidivism—into the sentencing calculus when those considerations were not presented to the trial court. The panel’s application of the within-Guidelines presumption, its adherence to plain-error constraints, and its reliance on established Eighth Amendment proportionality precedent collectively sustain a life sentence for egregious kidnapping and child-exploitation offenses.

For practitioners, the opinion underscores the necessity of building a meticulous sentencing record: present empirical evidence, tether it to the statutory factors, make concise and explicit arguments, and preserve objections under Bostic. While the opinion is unpublished, its reasoning—rooted in Gall, Vonner, Abdulmutallab, and related Sixth Circuit authority—signals that, absent a well-developed record compelling a downward variance, within-Guidelines life sentences for comparably grave conduct will withstand appellate scrutiny and constitutional attack.