Court Opinion

ID: 9899393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 18:00:45.760318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:23.250540
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1360
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

        Justin Holzknecht, originally named as Justin Anthony Holzknecht

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: October 16, 2023
                            Filed: November 16, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Justin Holzknecht pled guilty to a single count of possession of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). The Presentence
Investigation Report (PSR) described Holzknecht’s arrest in possession of a cellular
phone containing a video of a prepubescent boy performing oral sex on an adult as
well as text messages between Holzknecht and an undercover law enforcement
officer in which Holzknecht described his efforts to “groom” his eight-year-old
brother to perform sexual activity with him. Neither Holzknecht nor the
Government objected to the factual statements contained in the PSR or to the
calculation of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) range of 46 to
57 months. The district 1 court accepted the PSR and varied upward, sentencing
Holzknecht to 96 months imprisonment to be followed by 15 years of supervised
release. Holzknecht appeals the sentence, contending that the district court erred by
varying upward based upon improper factors and factors already accounted for in
the Guidelines and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Finding no error,
and having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

       The PSR reached its proposed Guidelines range by applying: (1) a two-level
enhancement based upon the specific offense characteristic that the offense involved
a prepubescent minor who had not attained the age of 12; (2) a four-level increase
based upon the fact that the offense involved material that portrayed sadistic or
masochistic conduct; and (3) a two-level increase based upon the finding that the
offense involved at least 10 images but fewer than 150 images. In explaining the
reasons for the sentence, the district court stated that it had considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, particularly noting the need for deterrence and the protection of
the public as well as the nature and circumstances of the offense, including the text
messages’ description of Holzknecht’s grooming of his eight-year-old brother, his
online discussion of these grooming activities with an undercover officer, and the
fact that the child pornography was contained in a video found on Holzknecht’s
mobile phone.

       “When we review the imposition of sentences, whether inside or outside the
Guidelines range, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United
States v. Anwar, 880 F.3d 958, 973 (8th Cir. 2018). A district court abuses its
discretion in imposing a sentence, whether within or above the Guidelines range,

      1
        The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
                                      -2-
where it “fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight
to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits
a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v. Ali, 799 F.3d
1008, 1033 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).

       Holzknecht first asserts that the district court abused its discretion by giving
significant weight to the text messages from Holzknecht to an undercover officer.
Holzknecht contends that by doing so the district court “essentially punished
Holzknecht for alleged crimes for which he was not even accused.” Appellant Br.
12. However, the description of the text messages and the surrounding facts are set
forth in the PSR, to which Holzknecht did not object. And the “district court[] may
rely on unobjected-to paragraphs in a PSR.” United States v. Sarchett, 3 F.4th 1115,
1120 (8th Cir. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A)). Further, the text
messages, which were sent on both the day of Holzknecht’s arrest and the day before,
constitute part of the “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and “[a] district court has
wide discretion at sentencing as to the kind of information considered or its source.”
United States v. Pratt, 553 F.3d 1165, 1170 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Relevant information may include “criminal activity for which the defendant has not
been prosecuted.” Id. The district thus was entitled to rely on Holzknecht’s text
messages with an undercover officer.

       Next, Holzknecht argues that the district court varied upward based on the
seriousness of the offense and the fact that it involved “graphic child pornography,”
factors which were already accounted for in the calculation of Holzknecht’s advisory
Guidelines range. However, the district court found that the facts of this case “take[]
this out of the normal category of cases, it takes it out of the run-of-the-mill case,
and it takes it out of the guidelines range,” and, it is well established that “courts
may vary upward based on factors already considered under the Guidelines if they
determine ‘the weight the Guidelines assigned to a particular factor was
insufficient.’” United States v. Petersen, 22 F.4th 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2022) (citation

                                         -3-
omitted). The district court thus did not err in considering these factors in imposing
an upward variance.

       Finally, Holzknecht asserts that the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence when it varied upward from the Guidelines range, contending
that the district court placed too much weight on the content of his text messages.
Here, the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, including mitigating factors,
but it found Holzknecht’s grooming activity described in his text messages
particularly aggravating. This was within the district court’s discretion. See United
States v. One Horn, 62 F.4th 461, 463 (8th Cir. 2023) (“[A] district court’s choice to
assign relatively greater weight to the nature and circumstances of the offense than
to the mitigating personal characteristics of the defendant is well within its wide
latitude in weighing relevant factors.” (citation omitted)). The district court thus did
not abuse its discretion in imposing Holzknecht’s sentence.

      We affirm the district court.
                      ______________________________

                                          -4-