United States v. Michael Propst, 959 F.3d 298

Michael Propst had a long, repeated history (since 1999) of making harassing, obscene, and threatening interstate telephone calls, often while using methamphetamine.
On June 12, 2018, Propst made numerous calls (including to a Green Bay mother and daycare centers in Indiana and Iowa) claiming he was sexually assaulting children; he was arrested and pleaded guilty to two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) and one count under 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(C).
The PSR produced a Guidelines range of 24–30 months; the plea agreement allowed either party to argue for any sentence between 60 and 120 months.
At sentencing the prosecutor and judge misstated that Propst had “41 convictions for calls”; the defense counsel discussed many calls but did not explicitly object to that specific count.
The district court imposed an 84‑month sentence (upward variance), citing the aggravated nature of the calls, their repeated and long‑running character, lack of credible remorse, drug use, and need for deterrence.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the misstatement was not shown to have been relied upon and the court adequately explained the upward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court relied on inaccurate information about the number of prior convictions for harassing/obscene calls	Government: The misstated number was immaterial; the court did not rely on it in sentencing.	Propst: The court explicitly considered the incorrect "41 convictions for calls," so sentence was predicated on inaccurate information.	Court: Reviewed for plain error; although the number was misstated, the court did not rely on it in its sentencing rationale; no plain error.
Whether Propst preserved an objection to the inaccurate prior‑conviction count (standard of review)	Government: No timely, specific objection was made; plain‑error review applies.	Propst: Defense counsel’s comments preserved the issue for de novo review.	Court: Defense remarks did not constitute a specific contemporaneous objection; issue reviewed for plain error and fails.
Whether the district court adequately explained the upward variance from the Guidelines	Government: Parties agreed Guidelines understated seriousness; variance warranted by offense characteristics and plea bargaining.	Propst: Reasons cited are generic to these offenses and already captured by the Guidelines; insufficiently particular to justify large variance.	Court: De novo review—district court gave adequate, case‑specific § 3553(a) reasons (extreme nature, repeated conduct after prior punishment, lack of credible remorse, deterrence); variance upheld.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness standard for variances and requirement to explain sentence under § 3553(a))
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (purpose of contemporaneous‑objection requirement to give court opportunity to address errors)
Townsend v. United States, 334 U.S. 736 (1948) (due process requires sentencing based on accurate information)
Tucker v. United States, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (right to be sentenced on accurate information reiterated)
United States v. Chatman, 805 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2015) (defines when a court has actually relied on misinformation at sentencing)
United States v. Corona‑Gonzalez, 628 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2010) (contextual inquiry into influence of unsupported facts on sentencing)
United States v. Miller, 900 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2018) (what constitutes an adequate contemporaneous objection to preserve sentencing‑record errors)
United States v. Kuczora, 910 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2018) (no extraordinary circumstances required to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines)