United States v. Wohlman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17512
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wohlman pleaded guilty to one count of attempted enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and was sentenced to 121 months, at the top of the Guidelines range.
- PSR computed base offense level 24 with enhancements for misrepresentation of age, computer use, and a 5-level enhancement for a pattern of attempting to persuade a minor on multiple occasions.
- Images of child pornography were found on Wohlman’s computer, including in a folder tied to his online screen name; some images depicted prepubescent minors.
- Wohlman’s pretrial conduct involved online chats with a person posing as a 15-year-old and multiple arrangements to meet; a later undercover encounter (Count 2) was not completed.
- At sentencing, the government sought upward departures; Wohlman presented mitigating evidence from witnesses and experts, and the district court ultimately imposed a within-range, top-of-range sentence.
- Wohlman did not object at sentencing to procedural aspects of the sentence, and this appeal follows on multiple claimed procedural and substantive challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by treating uncharged conduct as repeat-offender status | Wohlman contends the court erred by labeling him a repeat sex offender based on Count 2 (uncharged conduct). | Wohlman argues the court relied on improper or unproven characterizations to justify an upward emphasis on risk. | No reversible error; district court may consider uncharged conduct for sentencing. |
| Whether the court required a higher standard of proof to link his son's death to a mitigating factor | Wohlman asserts the court improperly imposed strict proof for mitigating factors related to his son’s death. | Wohlman argues the court demanded clear-and-convincing evidence to connect death to behavior, beyond proper standards. | No reversible error; any error did not affect substantial rights. |
| Whether the court erred by concluding Wohlman was 'getting bolder' after his son’s death | Wohlman contends the court overstated a progression in behavior between 2005 and 2007 given rehabilitation since then. | Wohlman acknowledges the 2007 act of traveling to meet Monica, but argues it was before sentencing and not probative of ongoing risk. | Rationale supported by PSR and conduct; sentence sustained. |
| Whether the court erred in finding an interest in child pornography based on the PSR | Wohlman challenges reliance on PSR paragraph detailing 176 images as evidence of ongoing interest in child exploitation. | Wohlman did not object to the PSR’s factual findings; the district court properly weighed the evidence. | No reversible error; the PSR supports the finding. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in not giving weight to Dr. Rypma’s risk assessment | Wohlman claims the court improperly discounted expert testimony suggesting low reoffending risk. | Wohlman contends the court improperly discounted expert testimony without sufficient basis. | District court properly weighed expert testimony; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Townsend, 618 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2010) (procedural-sentence-error framework; plain error review for forfeited claims)
- United States v. Whiting, 522 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2008) (uncharged or acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing)
- United States v. Davis, 583 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2009) (unobjected PSR facts may be treated as true for sentencing purposes)
- United States v. Ault, 598 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2010) (credibility and weight of expert testimony are within district court’s discretion)
- United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2011) (need not recite every § 3553(a) factor when record shows proper consideration)
- United States v. Allmon, 500 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2007) (fine-imposition review; ability-to-pay considerations; plain-error standard)
- United States v. Berndt, 86 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1996) (factors for determining amount of fine; need not recite each factor in detail)
- United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 2009) (within-Guidelines sentences may be reasonable; emphasis on deterrence and public protection)