United States of America v. Wesley Muchow

In many respects, Wesley Muchow lived a life one could be proud of, and certainly not

one that would catch the eye of federal prosecutors. He graduated from high school, was

gainfully employed as a machine operator, and made a home in Bucyrus, a north central Ohio

community located along the historic Lincoln Highway. Muchow had a close bond with his

family, relying on their support during challenging times. And until this federal prosecution, his

known criminal record reflected only a decades-old state-law misdemeanor for driving under the

influence.

Unfortunately, Muchow's life had a dark chapter, one revealed in 2017 when FBI agents

executed a search warrant at his home. There, agents discovered 3,616 images of minors

engaged in sexually explicit conduct, all stored on electronic devices, as well as 61 videos

reflecting similarly explicit conduct.

Muchow's misconduct was not an isolated incident. The volume of child pornography

discovered in his home alone suggested as much. So too did the FBI's investigation. The search

warrant was based upon findings from the prior November and December, when an undercover

FBI agent used peer-to-peer file sharing programs to download remotely child pornography—

both pictures and videos—from Muchow's computer. The search revealed over 30 files of child

pornography. Muchow would later admit to "searching and downloading” child pornography for

at least "the past ten years.”

In the months that followed the search, Muchow sought to reform his ways. As a first

step, Muchow provided a signed statement to law enforcement officers admitting he had viewed

child pornography. Later, he attended counseling sessions to seek treatment for his addiction.

On top of that, he engaged in church, family, and work activities, and refrained from viewing

illegal pornographic images.

Muchow was indicted in October 2017 on one count of receiving and distributing

depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2),

and one count of possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), including at least

No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 3

one image of a prepubescent minor or a minor under the age of 12. Ultimately, Muchow pled

guilty to Count 1, and the government dismissed Count 2.

The case moved ahead to sentencing. Neither party objected to the Presentence Report.

The Guidelines range for Muchow's offense was calculated as 135 to 168 months in prison.

Muchow argued for a 60-month sentence, the mandatory minimum. He based his request on his

lack of criminal history, his educational and work history, and his cooperation with law

enforcement. The government, on the other hand, argued for a sentence within the Guidelines

range. Ultimately, the district court sentenced Muchow to 135 months, the very bottom end of

the Guidelines range, with an additional five years of supervised release.

II. ANALYSIS

Challenging the determination below, Muchow contends that the sentence imposed was

substantively unreasonable. In reviewing that sentence, we begin with the general rule

articulated across our cases: Where a district court acted reasonably in imposing a sentence, this

Court must affirm its decision. See, e.g., United States v. Heriot, 496 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.

2007) (Norris, J.).

Whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable is "a matter of reasoned discretion, not

math[.]” United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). In assessing the issue, our

Court, granting appropriate discretion to the district court, examines whether the district court

selected the sentence in an arbitrary manner, considered impermissible factors, or assigned

unreasonable weight to a permissible factor. See generally Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

56–57 (2007) (asking whether the district court, in sentencing a defendant, abused its discretion

in weighing the § 3553(a) factors or by giving significant weight to an improper factor).

While not dispositive, it bears repeating that the district court sentenced Muchow within

the Guidelines range. In this Circuit, Guidelines-range sentences are generally presumed to be

reasonable. See United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Here,

Muchow's sentence was at the very bottom of the range—in essence, the most favorable

Guidelines sentence he could have received.

No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 4

We see no reason to second-guess the district court's sentencing decision. The collection

of child pornography recovered from Muchow's residence was extensive and disturbing. In

addition to 129 images, it included four videos, each several minutes in length, showing adult

males raping prepubescent children. One video involved the use of a dog in sexual acts with

children—another the sexual bondage of a nine-year-old. Serving over a decade in prison is no

small matter, to be sure. "But it is [] Congress's prerogative to dictate sentencing enhancements

based on a retributive judgment that certain crimes are reprehensible and warrant serious

punishment as a result.” United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758, 764 (6th Cir. 2012). For these

reasons, we cannot say that a 135-month sentence—one at the very bottom of the Guidelines

range—was inappropriate here.

Muchow contests two grounds invoked by government counsel to justify his sentence.

Framing the government as arguing that Muchow "commit[ed] more crimes than his criminal

history reflected,” and then "minimize[d] his offenses,” Muchow contends that the district court

erred in relying on these "unfounded assumptions and speculation in its sentence.”

Here again, we afford the sentencing court significant latitude. We grant a district court

wide discretion in choosing what information it will consider at sentencing. That information

often includes considerations like the background, character, and conduct of the defendant. See

United States v. Kennedy, 499 F.3d 547, 552 (6th Cir. 2007) (Cook, J.). And the record here

indicates the district court properly considered the information before it in imposing the

sentence. With respect to prior instances of wrongdoing, Muchow himself acknowledged that he

had viewed child pornography for at least a decade, if not longer. That admission alone is

enough to support the district court's finding that Muchow viewed child pornography on "more

than just the dates that are included in the indictment.” It was thus neither arbitrary nor

speculative for the district court to consider the "extent and time frame this [conduct] went on” in

sentencing Muchow.

To the same end, government counsel, in response to Muchow's argument regarding his

level of cooperation, was within her right to note that, while Muchow was forthcoming in many

respects, he did not make complete disclosures regarding his offenses. In any event, the district

court did not credit the government's argument. Rather, the district court ultimately agreed with

No. 18-3738 United States v. Muchow Page 5

Muchow on the point, crediting his level of cooperation and efforts at rehabilitation: "I'm giving

you the lower end, of course, because I see substantial progress by you, as pointed out by [your

counsel].”

Finally, Muchow cites as a judicial vice conduct by the district court one would typically

consider a virtue, namely, assessing each side's argument in turn as it considered the sentence to

impose. At the sentencing hearing, both Muchow's counsel and the government's counsel

persuasively argued on behalf of their respective clients. Noting the force of those arguments,

the district court articulated the challenge before it: "Here's what goes through my mind, Mr.

Muchow: When I hear Mr. Ivey [counsel for Muchow], the sentence goes down. Then I listen

to Miss Angleli [counsel for the government], and the sentence goes back up.” Muchow finds

error in the "sentence [going] back up,” in response to the government's arguments.

As already explained, we see no error in the district court's sentencing decision. The

district court examined both parties' evidence and legal argument as it considered what sentence

to impose. That is what one would expect a sentencing court to do. Appellate courts in

particular rely on the district court to do so, as that court is "in a superior position to find facts

and judge their import under § 3553(a)[.]” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. District courts have "access to,

and greater familiarity with, the individual case and the individual defendant[.]” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). They should avail themselves of that information, as the

district court did in setting Muchow's sentence. That judgment, if reasonable, ordinarily should

be respected by a reviewing court. We do so here.

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.