United States of America v. John J. McCarthy

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1989
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
John J. McCarthy
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: March 17, 2025
Filed: April 14, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
John J. McCarthy was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor for
prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The district court1 sentenced him
to 120 months in prison and five years of supervised release. He violated the
1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
conditions of his release. It was revoked. The district court2 sentenced him to six
months in prison and a lifetime of supervised release. He appeals the term of
supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
McCarthy believes the imposition of lifetime supervision was substantively
unreasonable. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. United States v. Rollins,
105 F.4th 1115, 1116 (8th Cir. 2024). “A district court abuses its discretion and
imposes an unreasonable sentence when 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.”
Id.
McCarthy asserts lifetime supervision is unreasonable because it was “based
on first time violations of conditions he immediately admitted and promptly
corrected.” But the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, including “what you did, your personal characteristics, what it would take
to deter others from doing similar things, to protect the public from your own future
conduct, and then to provide you with education or treatment.” And it permissibly
weighed those factors, giving some greater weight than others. Rollins, 105 F.4th at
1117 (district courts can “assign some factors greater weight than others in
determining an appropriate sentence”).
Here, the court gave greater weight to McCarthy’s original offense
(enticement of a 12-year-old for sex) and the fact that his supervised release
violations were a danger to the public. On an unapproved electronic device, using
five email addresses and six messaging applications, he searched violence and child
exploitation, including pedo memes, gore memes, ephebophile, incest bathtub
memes, mom and daughter sex, perverse family, r@pebait, rape, incest, extreme
2 In April 2023, McCarthy’s supervised release was transferred to the Eastern
District of Missouri and assigned to the Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
brutal gangbang, and brutal anal. The phone contained five images of potential child
exploitation. The court said:
I also think that the nature of the conduct suggests not only that the
defendant requires a wake-up call in terms of the importance of
complying with his conditions, but also it suggests that he’s disposed
to make decisions that are, unfortunately, reminiscent of his original
offense in the absence of careful supervision.
. . . .
I think the history and characteristics of this defendant are also salient
in that he—obviously I’m taking into effect his history of committing
the crime that he originally committed, and then also I have considered
that he—obviously there are things in his background that make his
behavior more explicable than it might otherwise be, but that doesn’t
affect the risk it poses to society. And so I don’t think that justifies a
lesser term of supervision certainly, and I don’t think it lessens the
gravity of the offense here.
The court did not err in imposing lifetime supervision. See United States v. Phillips,
785 F.3d 282, 284 (8th Cir. 2015) (upholding imposition of lifetime supervision
based on defendant’s danger to the community).
* * * * * * *
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --