Reaffirming the Presumption of §3553(a) Consideration in Sentencing Reasonableness Review

Introduction

United States v. Ullman arises from the appeal of Thomas Ullman’s 300-month prison sentence for sexually exploiting a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). After pleading guilty in the Northern District of New York, Ullman challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. On April 4, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit—Judges Calabresi, Nathan, and Kahn—issued a summary order affirming the district court judgment. This case presents two principal issues: (1) whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor, and (2) whether the 300-month term was substantively unreasonable in light of Ullman’s conduct and comparative sentencing data.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed. On procedural review, the court applied a plain-error standard to Ullman’s unpreserved challenge and held that there was no clear error: a district court need not recite each § 3553(a) factor by name so long as its remarks “inform the defendant and public of the reasons for the sentence” and permit appellate review. The court invoked the rebuttable presumption that a sentencing judge has considered all relevant factors. On substantive review, the panel employed its “backstop” supervisory function—asking whether the sentence was “shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.” Given the gravity and scale of Ullman’s offense (over 200 child victims and thousands of images), a 300-month sentence—sixty months below the Guidelines recommendation—fell comfortably within the range of permissible outcomes. The judgment was therefore affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018) – Establishes the deferential “abuse-of-discretion” standard for preserved sentencing challenges.
United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2020) – Clarifies that unpreserved procedural reasonableness claims are reviewed for plain error.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) – Identifies significant procedural errors (e.g., miscalculating Guidelines, treating them as mandatory, inadequate explanation).
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and (c) – Statutory framework requiring consideration of factors such as offense seriousness, history, and need to avoid unwarranted disparities, and an explanation in open court.
United States v. Rosa, 957 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2020) – Reaffirms the presumption that a district court considers all § 3553(a) factors absent evidence to the contrary.
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) – Confirms that lengthy recitations of § 3553(a) subfactors are not required where the court’s rationale is transparent.
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) – Describes the substantive reasonableness “backstop” test for sentencing.
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) – Explains discrete weight afforded to § 3553(a)(6) disparities and affirms district court discretion.
United States v. Muzio, 966 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2020) – Upheld a Guidelines sentence for similar online child‐exploitation conduct.

Legal Reasoning

Procedural Reasonableness: Ullman argued that the district court erred by not expressly addressing the need to avoid “unwarranted sentence disparities” under § 3553(a)(6). The panel applied plain‐error review and invoked the presumption that district judges consider all statutory factors. Because the sentencing judge announced that she “reviewed and considered all pertinent information” (Presentence Report, counsel submissions, and § 3553(a) factors), and specifically analyzed the nature of the offense, defendant’s history, and public safety risk, there was no clear error—even though the court did not label each factor individually.

Substantive Reasonableness: The panel viewed the 300-month term through its “backstop” supervisory lens, asking if the sentence was outside the universe of permissible outcomes. Weighing the totality of circumstances—over 200 victims, thousands of images, evidence of domination, and the attacker’s admitted gratification—the court found the sentence reasonable. The panel underscored that district courts have broad discretion to assign weight to aggravating and mitigating factors, and a below-Guidelines variance does not, by itself, render a sentence substantively unreasonable.

Impact

United States v. Ullman solidifies three key principles in Second Circuit sentencing jurisprudence:

Permissive Explanation Requirement: District courts need not articulate each § 3553(a) subfactor by name so long as their reasoning plainly indicates that all relevant factors were considered.
Rebuttable Presumption: Absent contrary evidence in the record, appellate courts will presume the sentencing judge complied with § 3553(a), reducing the burden on trial courts to enumerate every factor in detail.
Robust Deference: Substantive reasonableness review remains highly deferential, with a “backstop” test that only invalidates sentences which are “shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.”

Together, these precepts streamline sentencing procedures while preserving appellate oversight, and they guide both district and appellate courts in future § 2251(a) and non-Guidelines sentencing appeals.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Abuse-of-Discretion Standard: A deferential review of a district court’s sentencing decision when preserved objections are raised, asking whether the judge made a clear error in judgment.
Plain-Error Review: Applied when a sentencing objection was not timely preserved in district court; requires the appellant to show a clear or obvious error that affected substantial rights and the fairness or integrity of proceedings.
§ 3553(a) Factors: A statutory list of considerations (e.g., nature of offense, history and characteristics of the defendant, deterrence, public protection, unwarranted disparities) that guide sentencing judges in fashioning an appropriate term.
Guidelines Range vs. Variance: The Sentencing Guidelines provide a recommended range; a “variance” occurs when a judge imposes a sentence above or below that range based on statutory factors.
Shockingly High/Low Test: In substantive review, courts will only vacate a sentence that falls outside the universe of reasonable outcomes to safeguard against arbitrary or legally unsound departures.
Summary Order: A non‐precedential disposition used by the Second Circuit for straightforward appeals; still governed by Rule 32.1 for citation but does not establish binding precedent.

Conclusion

United States v. Ullman reaffirms the Second Circuit’s commitment to a balanced sentencing framework. It clarifies that district judges need not mechanically recite every § 3553(a) factor but must provide a transparent rationale that implicates the statutory factors. It preserves strong deference to district court discretion and underscores that a carefully justified Guidelines or below-Guidelines sentence—a 60-month variance in this case—will rarely be overturned unless it lies outside the broad range of reasonable outcomes. This decision streamlines sentencing practices and offers both trial and appellate courts guiding principles for future challenges to procedural and substantive reasonableness.