United States v. Ullman: Clarifying Deferential Plain-Error Review and Reasonableness in Child Exploitation Sentencing

1. Introduction

In United States v. Ullman (2d Cir. 2025), the Second Circuit addressed an appeal by Thomas Ullman, who pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) for sexually exploiting minors via online chat platforms. The district court imposed a 300-month term of imprisonment—60 months below the Sentencing Guidelines range—and fifteen years of supervised release. On appeal, Ullman challenged the length of his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Because he did not preserve certain objections below, the Court applied plain-error review to procedural claims and abuse-of-discretion review to substantive claims. The panel unanimously affirmed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit’s summary order affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. Key points include:

The appeal was governed by plain-error review for procedural challenges, since Ullman failed to object below.
Procedurally, the sentencing court properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors and the Presentence Investigation Report, and articulated sufficient reasons for the variance.
Substantively, the 300-month sentence was within the “range of permissible decisions” for an offender who manipulated over 200 minor victims, prompting the Court to reject any suggestion that the sentence was “shockingly high” or “unsupportable.”
All subsidiary arguments—such as alleged disparities with similar defendants—were deemed unpersuasive under the deferential standards of review.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018): Established that sentencing reviews for preserved errors use a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2020): Confirmed that unpreserved procedural challenges are subject to plain-error review.
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010): Defined the four prongs of plain-error review (error, clear or obvious, affecting substantial rights, and undermining judicial integrity).
United States v. Pruitt, 813 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2016): Enumerated significant procedural errors in sentencing (miscalculating Guidelines, treating Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider § 3553(a) factors, etc.).
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Emphasized that reasoned consideration of the Guidelines and § 3553(a) factors is required but does not demand formulaic recitation.
United States v. Rosa, 957 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2020): Held that sentencing judges are presumed to have considered all § 3553(a) factors unless evidence suggests otherwise.
United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2012): Clarified that § 3553(c) requires no “specific formulas or incantations” so long as the rationale is apparent on the record.
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008): Reinforced that appellate review focuses on reasonableness, not on whether the court discussed each factor expressly.
United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007): Reiterated that a sentencing court need not discuss every § 3553(a) factor in isolation.
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012): Addressed the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors and § 3553(a)(6) disparities argument.
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009): Explained the “backstop” role of substantive reasonableness review to guard against sentences that are shockingly unreasonable.
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008): Directed courts to consider the totality of the circumstances with deference to district court discretion.
United States v. Perez-Frias, 636 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2011): Held that a sentence within the Guidelines is presumptively reasonable absent exceptional circumstances.
United States v. Muzio, 966 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2020): Affirmed a Guidelines sentence for a similar offender who posed as a minor online and collected explicit materials from children.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in two parts:

Procedural Reasonableness:
- The plain-error standard requires a showing of a clear mistake that affected substantial rights and the integrity of proceedings (Marcus).
- Because Ullman did not argue below that the court failed to consider unwarranted disparity under § 3553(a)(6), he bore the burden to show a presumption of omission was rebutted (Rosa).
- No record evidence indicated that the court neglected relevant factors. The sentencing judge expressly considered the PSI, counsel submissions, and § 3553(a) criteria, satisfying § 3553(c)’s “reasoned explanation” requirement (Cassesse; Verkhoglyad).
Substantive Reasonableness:
- Under an abuse-of-discretion lens, the Court asked whether the 300-month term falls outside the “range of permissible decisions” given the totality of circumstances (Perez-Frias, Rigas).
- Ullman’s extensive exploitation—over 2,500 images from 200+ minors—and his admitted predatory intent justified an above-average sentence. A downward variance of 60 months already recognized mitigating aspects without rendering the sentence unreasonable.
- The 300-month sentence parallels and, in some instances, is lower than other affirmed sentences for comparable conduct (Muzio), underscoring its appropriateness.

3.3 Impact

Although a summary order does not establish binding precedent in the Second Circuit, Ullman reinforces key principles:

Appellate courts will presume sentencing courts have considered all § 3553(a) factors absent clear contrary evidence (Rosa).
Plain-error review applies strictly to unpreserved procedural challenges, raising the bar for appellants who fail to object at trial (Smith).
Substantive reasonableness remains a deferential inquiry: sentences within or near the Guidelines continue to enjoy a presumption of reasonableness (Perez-Frias).
The decision signals to district courts that detailed, factor-by-factor explication, while helpful, is not mandatory so long as the rationale is clear on the record (Cassesse).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain-Error Review: A four-pronged test requiring an unpreserved error to be obvious, affect outcome, and undermine fairness (Marcus).
Procedural Reasonableness: Ensures a court (1) calculates the Guidelines correctly, (2) treats them as advisory, (3) considers § 3553(a) factors, and (4) explains its decision.
Substantive Reasonableness: Asks whether the resulting sentence is so unreasonable that it “shocks the conscience.”
§ 3553(a) Factors: Include the nature of the offense, history of the defendant, deterrence, public protection, and sentencing disparities.
Sentencing Guidelines Range: A recommended range based on offense level (determined by conduct) and criminal history category.
Variance: A judicially authorized departure from the Guidelines range when justified by circumstances.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Ullman underscores the Second Circuit’s commitment to deference in sentencing appeals. By affirming a substantial below-Guidelines sentence under plain-error and abuse-of-discretion standards, the Court clarified that procedural objections must be timely made and that courts need not employ rote incantations of each statutory factor. Ultimately, this decision fortifies the framework by which future defendants and judges will navigate sentencing challenges, especially in the sensitive context of child exploitation offenses.