United States v. Jason Hutchinson

── United States v. Jason Hutchinson ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-2749 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jason Lathe Hutchinson Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Western ____________ Submitted: January 12, 2026 Filed: June 4, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jason Hutchinson pleaded guilty to multiple child exploitation charges. He appeals, asserting the district court improperly relied on disputed factual allegations in determining his sentence. We agree.  I. In May 2024, Jason Hutchinson pleaded guilty to an 11-count Information, each count charging him with child sexual exploitation or attempted child sexual exploitation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). In the Plea Agreement, the government agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at 405 months, and Hutchinson was free to request a sentence as low as the statutory minimum of 180 months. At sentencing, neither party objected to calculation of the advisory Guidelines range, but Hutchinson lodged objections to paragraphs 103–105 of the Presentence Report. These paragraphs contained allegations that he had engaged in forcible sexual conduct with a 10-year-old boy. The district court overruled the objection and imposed an aggregate 450-month sentence of imprisonment with a lifetime term of supervised release to follow. II. On appeal, Hutchinson contends the district court erred when it considered unproven, objected-to factual allegations in the PSR at sentencing. “A district court commits procedural error when it ‘bas[es] a sentence on unproven, disputed allegations rather than facts.’” United States v. Dailey, 113 F.4th 850, 855 (8th Cir. 2024) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir. 2014)). Hutchinson objected to three specific paragraphs in the draft PSR, and he renewed his objection at sentencing. The government responded by telling the court that the information should remain in the PSR, but it did not offer any evidence to prove the allegations. Confronted with Hutchinson’s objection, and without evidence to support the disputed allegations, the district court had several options. It could, of course, sustain the objection. See United States v. Willis, 168 F.4th 1119, 1122 (8th Cir. 2026) (“A district court may not rely on objected-to portions of the PSR during sentencing unless the government presents evidence to prove the disputed facts.” (citing Richey, 758 F.3d at 1002)). Or it could state on the record that a ruling on the objection is -2- unnecessary, or that it would not consider the objected-to allegations in determining a sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) (“At sentencing, the court: [] must—for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter—rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing[.]”). But if a defendant objects—as Hutchinson did here—the court may not rely on the PSR as evidence to overrule the objec