United States of America v. Nathan Wright

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2195
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Nathan Wright
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: September 15, 2025
Filed: November 6, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Nathan Wright pled guilty to production of child pornography, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) as well as transportation of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) and (b)(2). Wright produced various images
and videos showing, among other things, oral penetration of a child while she was

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
sleeping. At sentencing, the district court1 applied a four-level enhancement for the
portrayal of sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depiction of violence under
U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(4)(A) and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 600
months’ imprisonment. Wright appeals, claiming the district court erred in
calculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and abused its discretion in
weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We affirm.
Wright contends the images he produced did not portray sadistic or
masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence because they showed a sleeping
child unaware of the sexual contact. We review a district court’s factual
determination of whether an image depicts “a form of penetration” for clear error.
United States v. Morgan, 842 F.3d 1070, 1076 (8th Cir. 2016). We have previously
stated that “images involving the sexual penetration of a minor girl by an adult . . .
are per se sadistic or violent.” United States v. Belflower, 390 F.3d 560, 562 (8th
Cir. 2004). We need not rely on a per se rule here because the image Wright
produced depicted forced oral sex involving a four-year-old girl, and that depiction
qualifies as sadistic or violent for purposes of the enhancement. See United States
v. Parker, 267 F.3d 839, 847 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding images depicting “forced oral
sex” among other acts qualifies as sadistic or violent). The enhancement applies
regardless of the victim’s subjective awareness of sexual penetration. See United
States v. Starr, 533 F.3d 985, 1001 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting the argument “that the
absence of evidence of any pain or injury suffered on the part of [the victim]
prohibits the application of the enhancement”). The district court did not err in
applying the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(4)(A).2
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, then United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas, now Chief Judge.
2 Because we are obligated to follow our precedent, Wright’s reliance on
United States v. Nesmith, 866 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2017), is unavailing. United States
v. McCloud, 806 F. App’x 492, 492 n.2 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (unpublished)
(citing Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Wright also contends the district court abused its discretion in weighing the
sentencing factors when it imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 600 months. A
sentence within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Maati, 144 F.4th 1080, 1087 (8th Cir. 2025). The
record shows that the district court considered the mitigating factors raised by
Wright, including his childhood trauma, history of drug abuse, and an alleged
sentencing disparity between Wright and similarly situated defendants. In imposing
the sentence, the district court acted within its “wide latitude” to weigh the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and assign greater weight to the nature and
circumstances of Wright’s offense than other factors. See United States v. Farmer,
647 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 2011). Wright has not shown the district court abused
its discretion or imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --