United States of America v. Jason Richard Heider

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1129
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jason Richard Heider
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: March 21, 2025
Filed: May 22, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jason Richard Heider pled guilty to producing and receiving child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), 2251(e), 2252(a)(2) and

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
2252(b)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 300 months in prison. He appeals.
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
I.
Heider asserts the court procedurally erred in calculating the guidelines range
because, after granting the U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 substantial-assistance departure, it
“failed to articulate a new guideline range before varying upward.” Heider did not
object at sentencing, and review is for plain error. United States v. Troyer, 677 F.3d
356, 358 (8th Cir. 2012). On plain error review, the defendant “must show that the
district court committed an error that is clear or obvious, that the error affected his
substantial rights, and that the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 358–59.
The parties agreed the guidelines range was 210 to 262 months. The
government moved for “a sentencing reduction of 30% from the top of the advisory
guidelines range,” resulting in 183 months (about 15 years). Discussing the § 5K1.1
motion, the district court said:
I cannot contemplate a world where a 15-year sentence is appropriate
here. And so in the absence of the defendant’s guilty plea and in the
absence of a 5K1.1 motion here, I would have been stacking these two
sentences and giving him a 50-year sentence. With these two motions,
in other words, the acceptance of responsibility and cooperation, I will
give him the 30-year sentence that I would give him, which credits him
40 percent off for having pled guilty and cooperated, but I cannot
contemplate anything less than that in this case under a 3553(a)
analysis.
The district court properly considered and calculated the substantial-assistance
reduction. There was no plain procedural error.
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
II.
Heider contends the sentence was substantively unreasonable. This court
reviews for abuse of discretion. United States v. Seys, 27 F.4th 606, 611. “A
sentencing court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor that
should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error
of judgment in weighing those factors.” Id. at 611–12 (internal quotations marks
omitted).
Heider argues that the “guidelines have already accounted for the aggravating
factors in this case.” But it “is well-settled that factors taken into account in
calculating the advisory guidelines range can form the basis of an upward variance.”
United States v. Manuel, 73 F.4th 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2023). In no case is that more
relevant than here. The district court’s upward variance was based in significant part
on the “absolutely unfathomably horrific” nature of the offense. At sentencing, the
court said:
This defendant actively sought out children he knew had been
sexually abused previously and removed from the care of their parents
and placed with David Woods, who was their foster father. He knew
that David Woods was actively sexually abusing those boys and
essentially loaning them out to other violent pedophiles for abuse, and
knowing that, he gleefully—and I say gleefully because he uses smiley
faces in his exchanges about how he raped this—went and raped this
child, this prepubescent 12-year-old boy, and allowed David Woods to
film it, and distributed it.
He has all kinds of messages in his history indicating that this is
something that’s been going on for years with him, this seeking out of
quite young children. He has interactions where he’s attempting to
have sexual contact with another foster child in this same home.
. . . .

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
We’ve talked about what this crime was. On January 18th of
2021, the defendant traveled to Davenport, Iowa, for the express
purpose of anally raping a prepubescent boy who was in foster care in
the care of one of his associates, David Woods. Prior to the sexual
assault, Woods had sent child pornography, photos and videos,
featuring this boy to the defendant.
Defendant had enthusiastically discussed, you know, the
upcoming assault of this boy and then enthusiastically described it after
it happened to yet another man, using smiley faces and sarcastically
talking about how much faith he had in the foster care system, given
Woods’ routine loaning out of these boys to pedophiles.
Of course, Woods videotaped this encounter because that was
what Woods was into. He posted it. It is a case that eats at the soul, I
think, of anybody who has to deal with it.
Heider also claims the district court failed “to provide weight to any positive
factors.” This is false. The court recognized “a fair amount of good that underlies
the defendant.” It discussed Heider’s upbringing in a “loving home;” his good
relationships with his husband, daughter, and ex-wife; his good physical condition
without any serious mental health conditions; his minimal substance abuse history;
his “bright” intellect and college education; and his lack of criminal history. The
court also found that Heider’s allocution was “very insightful,” “honest” and
“demonstrate[s] some maturity in learning.” The court “was clearly aware of the
[mitigating] facts alleged and took them into account.” United States v. Townsend,
617 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010).
Ultimately, the court determined that Heider is an “incredibly dangerous . . .
pedophile” who, although deserving of “credit for cooperating” still merited a 300-
month sentence. This was not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Allison,
814 F.3d 952, 954 (8th Cir. 2016) (upholding an upward variance based on the
“disturbing” and “egregious” circumstances of the sexual exploitation of a child).
* * * * * * *

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 5 of 5 --