Reaffirming Presumption of §3553(a) Consideration and Plain‐Error Review in Sentencing: United States v. Ullman

Introduction

United States v. Ullman, 24-987-cr (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2025), is a summary order from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a district court’s 300-month sentence for child sexual exploitation under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The defendant, Thomas Ullman, pleaded guilty to persuading teenage girls to produce and send him sexually explicit images and videos. On appeal, Ullman argued both procedural and substantive unreasonableness of his sentence, challenging the district court’s explanation of factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and asserting the term was excessive in light of similar cases. The Second Circuit’s ruling reinforces two core principles: (1) in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, a sentencing court is presumed to have considered all relevant § 3553(a) factors even if it does not mention each one by name; and (2) unpreserved sentencing challenges are reviewed under the “plain error” standard.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held:

Procedural Reasonableness – Ullman’s claim that the district court failed to consider § 3553(a)(6) (avoiding unwarranted disparities) was reviewed for plain error. The court invoked the presumption that, absent evidence to the contrary, the sentencing judge considered all § 3553(a) factors and found no clear error.
Substantive Reasonableness – Giving due deference to the district court’s discretion and the gravity of Ullman’s conduct (over 2,500 images, more than 200 victims, and his admissions of domination), the appeals court ruled the sentence was neither “shockingly high” nor unsupportable.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018): established abuse‐of‐discretion standard for preserved sentencing claims.
United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2020): confirmed plain‐error review applies to unpreserved procedural sentencing challenges.
United States v. Rosa, 957 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2020): presumption that a district court considers all relevant § 3553(a) factors absent evidence to the contrary.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): outlined procedural requirements and discretion in sentencing.
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008): set the standard for substantive reasonableness review.

These authorities together guided the court’s approach: applying deferential standards, enforcing the presumption of factor consideration, and rejecting challenges absent a clear showing of error.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in two parts:

Procedural Reasonableness under Plain Error: Because Ullman never pressed a § 3553(a)(6) disparity argument in district court, plain error review applied. He bore the burden to show an obvious error affecting substantial rights and the fairness of proceedings. He failed to rebut the presumption (Rosa) that the district judge considered every § 3553(a) factor, so no procedural error was plain.
Substantive Reasonableness: Even a sentence within the Guidelines is subject to “backstop” scrutiny to ensure it is not “shockingly high.” The Second Circuit found the 300-month sentence reasonable given the volume of exploitation, number of victims, upward‐adjusted offense level (42), the judge’s evaluation of risk and aggravating factors, and the substantial downward variance (60 months below the 360-month Guideline range).

3. Impact

United States v. Ullman will guide both practitioners and sentencing judges in three principal ways:

Reaffirmed Presumption: Defendants must present concrete proof if they claim the court ignored a § 3553(a) factor; mere absence of explicit enumeration will not suffice.
Plain Error Reminder: Unpreserved sentencing arguments face tough scrutiny; parties should lodge all claims in district court to avoid heightened appellate hurdles.
Discretion in Variances: A below-Guidelines variance remains presumptively reasonable so long as the district court articulates a rational basis within § 3553(a).

Complex Concepts Simplified

For clarity, some technical terms used in the opinion are explained below:

Plain Error Review: A highly deferential appellate standard requiring the defendant to show an obvious mistake that affected the outcome and the integrity of the process.
§ 3553(a) Factors: A list of seven statutory considerations (nature of offense, history of defendant, need for deterrence, and more) guiding a judge’s sentence choice.
Guidelines Range: The sentencing range recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, based on offense level and criminal history.
Downward Variance: When a judge imposes a sentence below the Guidelines range after weighing § 3553(a) factors.

Conclusion

United States v. Ullman reinforces that sentencing courts are presumed to consider all statutory factors unless a defendant provides clear proof otherwise. It underscores the importance of preserving sentencing challenges at the trial level and affirms the broad discretion accorded to district judges in balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The decision will serve as a touchstone for future appeals on procedural and substantive reasonableness, ensuring that sentencing judges need not recite every factor by name so long as their rationale is apparent and grounded in the record.