United States v. Wohlman, No. 10-2967 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted enticement of a minor and was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court committed several procedural errors and imposed an unreasonable sentence. The court held that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court did not err in describing defendant as a repeat sex offender; by requiring defendant to establish by "clear and convincing" evidence that his son's death was a mitigating factor; in finding that defendant was "getting bolder" when he traveled to engage in sexual conduct with a child; in finding that defendant failed to object to the PSR, which outlined the forensic examination of his computer; in giving little weight to defendant's expert's testimony regarding the likelihood of defendant committing similar crimes in the future; and in imposing a $15,000 fine. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court thoroughly considered the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The court declined to reach the merits of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant failed to object at sentencing to any alleged procedural sentencing error and his claims of error would only be reviewed for plain error; court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory; district court did not err in describing defendant as a repeat sex offender; even assuming that the court erred in setting too high a burden of proof for defendant's claim that his son's death should be considered as a mitigating factor, the error was harmless; record supported the district court's conclusion that defendant's conduct was becoming bolder based on the steps he took to consummate his criminal activity; the district court did not err in discounting defendant's experts' testimony regarding the likelihood of recidivist activity; fine in the amount of $15,000 affirmed; sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the court would not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. Judge Bright, concurring.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.