United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2166

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Donald Wayne Bleckler, Sr.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: January 16, 2013

 Filed: March 28, 2013

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Following one victim’s report ofsexual abuse to her mother, a forensic analysis

of 52-year-old Donald Wayne Bleckler’s computers revealed home-made videos of

Bleckler sadistically torturing three members of his extended family who were each

under the age of ten, and more than 600 images of child pornography. Bleckler

pleaded guilty to three counts of producing child pornography and one count of
possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and

2252A(a)(5)(B). The statutory maximum sentence for each count of producing child

pornography was 30 years in prison, see § 2251(e), and for the possession count was

10 years, § 2252A(b)(2). The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) calculated

an adjusted total offense level of 43. The Probation Officer recommended maximum

consecutive sentences on each count, or a total of 1200 months in prison. 

At sentencing, Bleckler urged a 360-month sentence based on his age, failing

health, and acceptance of responsibility. The government urged a 1080-month

sentence, emphasizing the egregiousness of the offenses. The district court

1

sentenced Bleckler to 660 months, 200 months for each production count and 60

months for the possession count, all to run consecutively. The court emphasized the

uniquely severe nature of Bleckler’s offense and the need to provide adequate

deterrence and just punishment for each victim: 

[U]nfortunately, we’ve had a number of people stand there who

have . . . done what Mr. Bleckler did but nobody to the extent that he

did. It stands out. His conduct is uniquely horrific . . . . 

Bleckler objected to the sentence, reiterating the mitigating aspects of his personal

history. The court responded: 

Understood. It’s the Court’s determination, given the nature and

circumstances of the offense, the number of victims, the horrific and

egregious repeated conduct with those victims, that when you balance

all the sentencing factors that it’s not substantively unreasonable and it

is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the statutory

purposes of sentencing.

The HonorableRodneyW. Sippel, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri. 

-2-
Bleckler appeals, contending the court imposed a substantively unreasonable

sentence that overemphasized his offense conduct and failed to adequately consider

substantial mitigating circumstances such as his age, failing health, clean criminal

record, and prompt acceptance of responsibility. Reviewing this contention under a

deferential abuse of discretion standard, and “tak[ing] into account the totality of the

circumstances,” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), we affirm. As we have

often stated, “The district court has wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) [sentencing]

factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than othersin determining

an appropriate sentence.” United States v. Borromeo, 657 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir.

2011) (quotations omitted). Here, the court considered the mitigating circumstances

urged by Bleckler in conjunction with other relevant sentencing factors and sentenced

him to 660 months in prison, a 45 percent reduction from the recommended sentence. 

Without question, this is a severe sentence, in all likelihood a life sentence for a 53-

year-old man with health issues. But his crimes against three young members of his

extended family were repetitive and truly heinous. After careful review of the

sentencing record, we conclude that this is not “the unusual case when we reverse a

district court sentence -- whether within, above, or below the applicable range -- as

substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc) (quotations omitted).

 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

-3-