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

Introduction

United States v. Ullman, No. 24-987-cr (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2025), is a Second Circuit summary order affirming a 300-month sentence imposed on Thomas Ullman after a guilty plea to one count of sexually exploiting a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Ullman challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence on appeal. The key issues before the court were: (1) whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to explicitly consider the § 3553(a)(6) sentencing factor concerning unwarranted disparities among similarly situated defendants; and (2) whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable under an abuse-of-discretion standard. The United States (“Appellee”), represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Sutcliffe, opposed the appeal; Ullman (“Defendant-Appellant”), through Assistant Federal Public Defender Molly Corbett, argued that his sentence was excessive.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit, in a per curiam summary order, affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held:

Procedural Reasonableness: Under plain-error review, Ullman failed to show that the district court clearly erred by not expressly discussing § 3553(a)(6). The court applied the presumption that all relevant § 3553(a) factors were considered absent evidence to the contrary.
Substantive Reasonableness: Ullman’s 300-month term—60 months below the 360-month Guidelines range—fell well within the “range of permissible decisions.” Given the nature and seriousness of Ullman’s conduct, the sentence was not “shockingly high” nor “unsupportable as a matter of law.”
Conclusion: The appeal was without merit, and the district court’s judgment was affirmed in all respects.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The court grounded its reasoning in a robust line of precedents:

United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018): Established the abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing preserved procedural and substantive sentencing challenges.
United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2020): Clarified that unpreserved procedural objections are reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010): Defined the four-prong plain-error framework.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Outlined the procedural requirements for sentencing, including proper calculation of the Guidelines range and consideration of § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Rosa, 957 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2020): Reaffirmed the presumption that a sentencing court considered all § 3553(a) factors absent clear evidence otherwise.
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008): Held that a district court need not articulate each § 3553(a) factor in detail.
United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007): Declared that sentencing courts are not bound to “discuss every § 3553(a) factor individually.”
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012): Emphasized district courts’ wide discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009): Described the “backstop” role of substantive reasonableness review to police extreme sentences.
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008): Instructed courts to defer to district judges under the totality-of-the-circumstances approach.
United States v. Perez-Frias, 636 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2011): Reinforced that a sentence within the Guidelines is presumptively reasonable.
United States v. Muzio, 966 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2020): Affirmed a similar child-exploitation sentence within the Guidelines range.

Collectively, these cases shaped the court’s approach: they define standards of review, clarify the scope of § 3553(a) explanations, and uphold wide deference to district courts.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Second Circuit’s decision can be broken down into two main strands:

Procedural Reasonableness (Plain Error Review)
Because Ullman failed to object at sentencing to the absence of an explicit § 3553(a)(6) discussion, the court applied the plain-error test under Marcus. Ullman had to show a clear error that affected his substantial rights and the fairness of proceedings. Relying on Rosa and Verkhoglyad, the court invoked the presumption that the district court considered all statutory factors. Ullman presented no record evidence that the disparity factor was ignored or overlooked. Consequently, no plain error was found.
Substantive Reasonableness (Abuse of Discretion)
Even assuming a preserved challenge, the court would apply the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard per Brooks and Cavera. A within-Guidelines—or below-Guidelines after a justified variance—sentence is generally reasonable (Perez-Frias). Ullman’s conduct involved over 200 minor victims and thousands of explicit images and streams. The district court identified appropriate aggravating factors and granted a 60-month downward variance. Under Rigas, the result was neither “shockingly high” nor outside the universe of permissible outcomes.

3. Impact

United States v. Ullman reaffirms and consolidates key sentencing principles in the Second Circuit:

It underscores the practical presumption that district courts consider all relevant § 3553(a) factors absent a clear record showing otherwise.
It clarifies that summary orders—though non-precedential—can reaffirm critical sentencing standards such as plain-error review and deference to downward variances.
It signals to practitioners that, to preserve challenges, objections to procedural omissions must be made explicitly at sentencing.
It affirms that district judges enjoy broad discretion in balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, particularly in child-exploitation cases.

Future appellants will face a high bar when attacking sentencing explanations or the weight given to § 3553(a) factors, especially under plain-error review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

§ 3553(a) Factors: A statutory list of considerations—such as the nature of the offense, need for deterrence, and disparity among defendants—courts must weigh when sentencing.
Sentencing Guidelines Range: A numerical imprisonment range calculated by applying the Sentencing Guidelines to offense conduct and criminal history.
Downward Variance: A sentence below the Guidelines range, justified by unique case circumstances.
Plain-Error Review: A four-prong test applied when a defendant fails to object at trial or sentencing, requiring proof of clear error affecting substantial rights and the fairness of proceedings.
Abuse-of-Discretion Standard: A deferential appellate review in which a court will only reverse if the sentencing decision falls outside the range of permissible outcomes.

Conclusion

United States v. Ullman solidifies two cornerstone sentencing doctrines in the Second Circuit: (1) the presumption that district courts duly consider all § 3553(a) factors absent a demonstrable record omission; and (2) the application of plain-error review to unpreserved procedural challenges. By affirming a substantial below-Guidelines sentence for a grave child-exploitation offense, the decision also reaffirms the deference owed to district judges in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors. The case thus carries enduring lessons for sentencing practice and appellate strategy.