Sixth Circuit Reinforces Strong Deference to Below-Guidelines Sentences and Limits “National Average” Disparity Challenges

1. Introduction

In United States v. Derek Hahn (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2026) (unpublished), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a 330-month prison sentence (below the advisory Guidelines term of 360 months) imposed after Derek Hahn pleaded guilty to using a minor to produce sexually explicit videos in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).

The appeal raised two core sentencing themes: (1) whether the district court gave sufficient weight to mitigating evidence (first-time offender status, remorse, work history, supportive letters, rehabilitation plans), and (2) whether the sentence created an unwarranted disparity compared to similarly situated defendants, particularly when compared to national sentencing averages.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Sixth Circuit held that Hahn’s arguments sounded in substantive reasonableness (not procedural error) and that he failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to a below-Guidelines sentence. The court also rejected the government’s waiver claim, concluding Hahn did not intentionally relinquish his disparity argument. On the merits, the court held that the district court adequately considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), reasonably emphasized offense seriousness and victim impact, and reasonably addressed disparity concerns—even after acknowledging national disparity arguments—by explaining why a lengthy sentence was warranted on these facts.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

  • United States v. West, 962 F.3d 183 (6th Cir. 2020): Cited for the overarching abuse-of-discretion standard governing sentencing appeals (procedural and substantive review). It frames the appellate posture: deference to district-court weighing unless the sentence falls outside the range of reasoned outcomes.
  • Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Supplies the canonical list of procedural error types (miscalculated Guidelines, treating Guidelines as mandatory, ignoring § 3553(a), clearly erroneous facts, inadequate explanation). The panel used Gall to show Hahn did not actually identify procedural defects, narrowing the appeal to substantive reasonableness.
  • United States v. Nunley, 29 F.4th 824 (6th Cir. 2022) and United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018): Used to define substantive reasonableness as essentially a claim the sentence is “too long,” typically arguing the court misweighted § 3553(a) factors. This supported the court’s recharacterization of Hahn’s arguments.
  • United States v. Pirosko, 787 F.3d 358 (6th Cir. 2015): Establishes that a within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and, “by extension,” so is a below-Guidelines sentence. This presumption was central: Hahn had to overcome it.
  • United States v. Curry, 536 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2008) (order): Adds that challenging a below-Guidelines sentence is “even more demanding” than challenging a within-Guidelines sentence. The panel relied on this to emphasize the steep burden Hahn faced.
  • United States v. Gardner, 32 F.4th 504 (6th Cir. 2022): Supports the principle that a district court may assign greater weight to certain § 3553(a) factors (e.g., offense seriousness, deterrence) without acting unreasonably. This answered Hahn’s “not enough weight to mitigation” theme.
  • United States v. Sexton, 512 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2008): Reiterates that appellate review asks whether the sentence is reasonable, not whether the appellate court would have balanced the factors differently. This undercut Hahn’s request to reweigh mitigation.
  • United States v. Russell, 26 F.4th 371 (6th Cir. 2022): Provides the definition of waiver as “intentional relinquishment or abandonment” of a right. The panel used it to reject the government’s argument that Hahn waived disparity arguments by advocating generally for a below-Guidelines sentence.
  • United States v. Volkman, 797 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2015) and United States v. Swafford, 639 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2011): These cases limit the use of § 3553(a)(6) disparity arguments, reasoning that the Guidelines are designed to reduce disparities and that within-Guidelines sentences generally further that goal. Swafford supplied the additional logic that further variances may create disparities rather than eliminate them—particularly relevant because Hahn already received a variance.
  • United States v. Reynolds, 813 F. App'x 185 (6th Cir. 2020): Cited for the proposition that a below-Guidelines sentence is not shown substantively unreasonable solely because it exceeds national averages; Hahn’s reliance on averages alone was thus insufficient.
  • United States v. Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d 748 (6th Cir. 2020): Recognizes Sentencing Commission data as a relevant “starting point” for disparity analysis. The panel used it to confirm the district court properly considered the concept of national disparity, but still reasonably distinguished Hahn’s case.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. Procedural vs. substantive reasonableness (and why it mattered here)

The court first sorted Hahn’s claims into the correct doctrinal box. Although Hahn nominally invoked both procedural and substantive review, he did not allege any of the Gall procedural errors (miscalculation, mandatory treatment, ignored factors, erroneous facts, inadequate explanation). His claim was that the district court undervalued mitigation and produced an excessive term—classic Rayyan/Nunley substantive review.

B. Mitigation and deference to district-court weighing

The panel emphasized that the district court did consider the mitigating evidence: employment history, supportive letters, and remorse. But it permissibly assigned greater weight to aggravating considerations under § 3553(a): the “profoundly serious” nature of the offense, the victim’s enduring harm, concern that Hahn had not fully confronted his conduct, public protection, and repeated exploitation for self-gratification.

Under United States v. Gardner and United States v. Sexton, the question is not whether mitigation could support a lower sentence; it is whether the court’s balancing fell within the range of reasonable judgments. The Sixth Circuit held it did—especially because the district court already granted a “slight” downward variance.

C. Disparity under § 3553(a)(6): waiver, then merits

On waiver, the panel applied United States v. Russell and found no “intentional relinquishment.” Hahn’s sentencing memorandum argued a below-Guidelines sentence would not create disparity and referenced an average sentence (324 months) for defendants receiving a repeat offender enhancement under U.S.S.G § 4B1.5(b). That did not waive a claim that 330 months was still disparate; indeed, the “324 months” reference implicitly supported an argument that a first-time offender might merit even less.

On the merits, the panel leaned on United States v. Volkman and United States v. Swafford to underscore that disparity arguments are difficult where the Guidelines already operate as the principal disparity- reducing mechanism—and more so where the defendant already received a variance. The court also invoked United States v. Reynolds to reject the notion that exceeding national averages alone demonstrates substantive unreasonableness.

Importantly, the panel also credited the district court’s engagement with disparity arguments in the manner contemplated by United States v. Perez-Rodriguez: the judge recognized national-disparity critiques of child pornography Guidelines, treated the data as relevant, and nonetheless explained why this case warranted a long sentence based on seriousness, repeated conduct, and victim impact.

3.3 Impact

  • Stronger practical shield for below-Guidelines sentences: By reiterating Pirosko and Curry, the opinion reinforces that defendants face an especially steep climb when arguing a sentence is “too long” despite already receiving a downward variance.
  • National averages are not a stand-alone win: The decision underscores that Sentencing Commission data can inform the analysis, but a defendant typically must show more than “higher than average”; they must confront the district court’s individualized reasons distinguishing the case.
  • Waiver is narrowly applied in sentencing-disparity disputes: The court’s treatment of waiver suggests that general pro-variance arguments at sentencing do not automatically extinguish later appellate claims about the extent of the variance—absent clear, intentional abandonment.
  • Child-exploitation sentencing remains highly fact-driven: The district court’s emphasis on repeated self-gratification at a known victim’s expense and long-term harm illustrates the continued centrality of victim-impact and conduct-pattern facts in § 2251(a) sentencing.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Guidelines range vs. statutory maximum: Even if the Guidelines recommend “360 months to life,” a statute may cap the maximum term. Here, the cap was 360 months, making that the effective Guidelines term.
  • Variance (downward): A sentence below the advisory Guidelines range based on the judge’s application of § 3553(a) factors (as opposed to a technical “departure” under the Guidelines’ internal rules).
  • Procedural vs. substantive reasonableness: “Procedural” asks whether the judge followed the right steps (correct range, considered factors, explained). “Substantive” asks whether the final length is reasonable given the factors.
  • Presumption of reasonableness: On appeal, within-Guidelines—and in this circuit, also below-Guidelines— sentences start with a presumption they are reasonable; the defendant must overcome that presumption.
  • § 3553(a)(6) disparity: Courts must avoid “unwarranted” disparities among similar defendants, but the Guidelines are viewed as a primary tool to reduce disparities—so arguments based solely on nationwide averages often fail unless tied to meaningful case similarity and an inadequate district-court explanation.
  • Waiver: Not merely failing to press a point, but intentionally giving it up. The Sixth Circuit found no such intentional abandonment here.
  • U.S.S.G § 4B1.5(b): A “repeat offender” enhancement in certain sex-offense contexts; Hahn used national averages involving that enhancement to argue his first-offender status supported a variance.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Derek Hahn consolidates familiar Sixth Circuit sentencing doctrines into a clear message: where a district court thoughtfully addresses § 3553(a), recognizes mitigation and disparity arguments, and provides a reasoned explanation grounded in offense seriousness and victim harm, a below-Guidelines sentence will be exceptionally difficult to overturn. The opinion also clarifies that generalized variance advocacy does not necessarily waive a defendant’s ability to argue on appeal that the ultimate sentence remains disparate—yet, without a stronger showing than “above national averages,” such disparity challenges will rarely succeed.