Presumption of §3553(a) Factor Consideration and Substantive Reasonableness in High-Range Child Exploitation Sentences

Introduction

United States v. Ullman, 24-987-cr (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2025) arises from the conviction and sentencing of Thomas Ullman for sexually exploiting a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a). Ullman pleaded guilty after admitting that he posed online as a teenage boy and persuaded over 200 underage girls to send him explicit images and videos. The District Court for the Northern District of New York sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment followed by 15 years of supervised release. On appeal, Ullman challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of that sentence. The Second Circuit affirmed, articulating two key principles: (1) a district court’s failure to enumerate each §3553(a) factor will be presumed not to constitute procedural error, and (2) a high-range sentence for prolific child exploitation falls within the permissible range of substantive reasonableness when justified by aggravating facts.

Summary of the Judgment

The court reviewed Ullman’s preserved procedural challenge under plain-error review and his substantive challenge under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
On procedural reasonableness, the court held that the sentencing judge need not recite every §3553(a) factor; a rebuttable presumption exists that all factors were considered when the judge states that he has “reviewed and considered all pertinent information.”
On substantive reasonableness, the court found Ullman’s 300-month sentence—60 months below the Guidelines range of 360 months—was not “shockingly high” given the number of victims, volume of images, and predatory conduct.
The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court in all respects.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018): Standard for abuse-of-discretion review of sentence challenges.
United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2020): Application of plain-error review to unpreserved procedural sentencing objections.
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010): Four-part plain-error test.
United States v. Pruitt, 813 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2016) and Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Definition of procedural sentencing errors and §3553(c) explanatory requirements.
United States v. Rosa, 957 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2020), Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008), and Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007): The presumption that a district court considered all §3553(a) factors absent clear evidence otherwise.
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012): Disparity arguments under §3553(a)(6) and weight of aggravating factors.
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009), Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008), and Perez-Frias, 636 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2011): Framework for substantive reasonableness review and the “shockingly high” standard.
United States v. Muzio, 966 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2020): Affirmation of lengthy sentences in similar online child-exploitation scenarios.

Legal Reasoning

1. Procedural Reasonableness
The Second Circuit applied plain-error review because Ullman did not object in district court to the sufficiency of the sentencing explanation. Under Marcus, he bore the burden to show a clear error that affected his substantial rights and the integrity of the proceeding. The court emphasized §3553(c)’s requirement that a judge “state in open court the reasons” for a sentence but clarified that no “specific formulas or incantations” are mandated. By explicitly stating that it had reviewed the presentence report, counsel’s submissions, and the §3553(a) factors, the sentencing court satisfied its obligation and created a rebuttable presumption that it considered all relevant factors.

2. Substantive Reasonableness
Even though the sentence was within the Guidelines range, the court examined whether 300 months was “shockingly high.” It found ample aggravating circumstances—over 200 victims, hundreds of hours of predatory grooming, thousands of explicit images, and evidence of Ullman’s psychological gratification from domination—to justify a high-range sentence. The Second Circuit held that such a sentence, particularly when it reflects a downward variance, falls comfortably within the sentencing court’s broad discretion.

Impact

This decision reinforces two important doctrines in federal sentencing law:

Sentencing courts will be presumed to have considered all §3553(a) factors when they formally announce that they have reviewed them, reducing procedural challenges based on purported omissions in the record.
High-range sentences for online child exploitation—even below the Guidelines maximum—will survive substantive reasonableness review when predicated on extensive victimization and particularly egregious conduct.

Future litigants should understand that to overturn a high-range sentence in a prolific child exploitation case, they must demonstrate either a palpable procedural lapse or that the sentence lies outside the “range of permissible decisions” given the offense’s severity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

§3553(a) Factors: Statutory considerations including the nature of the offense, history of the defendant, need for deterrence and protection of the public, and avoidance of unwarranted sentencing disparities.
Plain-Error Review: An appellate standard for unpreserved errors requiring demonstration of obvious error that affected substantial rights and the fairness of proceedings.
Abuse-of-Discretion Review: A deferential standard that affirms a district court’s sentencing decisions unless they fall outside the wide range of reasonable outcomes.
Guidelines Range: The recommended sentencing bracket derived from the Sentencing Guidelines’ offense level and criminal history calculations.
Variance: A sentence above or below the Guidelines range imposed after consideration of §3553(a) factors.

Conclusion

United States v. Ullman crystallizes the principle that a sentencing court’s general statement of consideration of §3553(a) factors is sufficient to defeat procedural challenges, and it affirms that courts may impose—and appellate panels will uphold—substantial custodial sentences for extensive, predatory child exploitation. This decision thus strengthens judicial discretion in sentencing and sets a high bar for defendants seeking to reverse lengthy sentences for online sexual crimes against minors.