United States v. Barthman, No. 19-3268 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor. On remand, after denying defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court imposed a sentence of 151 months imprisonment and supervised release for life, and imposed a special assessment of $5,000 pursuant to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court clearly weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, including defendant's postsentencing rehabilitation. However, the court found that the district court clearly erred in its implicit finding that defendant was non-indigent and thus in imposing the special assessment. In this case, the district court clearly erred in not accounting for defendant's substantial negative net worth when it found he had the ability to pay in the future. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinion remanding this matter for resentencing, see U.S. v. Barthman, 919 F.3d 1118, 1120 (8th Cir. 2019). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the sentence, and the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable; the district court clearly erred in its implicit finding that defendant was not indigent and erred in imposing the $5,000 special assessment pursuant to the provisions of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act; the PSR showed defendant had a significant negative net worth and there was little likelihood defendant would obtain employment when released, given his record and probable age (80); defendant was indigent for purposes of the Act and the court erred in imposing the enhancement; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
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.