The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a 30-year prison sentence for a Pennsylvania man convicted of federal sex offenses involving minors, rejecting his claims that the punishment was unreasonable.
Soumya Rudra, 41, challenged his 360-month prison sentence and $50,000 fine on both procedural and substantive grounds, but the three-judge panel unanimously upheld the district court's decision in an opinion filed Jan. 9, 2026.
The case stems from Rudra's guilty plea to three federal charges: travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, transportation of visual depictions of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and possession of child pornography.
According to court documents, Rudra engaged in sexually explicit conversations with several minor girls from approximately 2020 to 2023. The criminal conduct came to a head on Nov. 23, 2023, when Rudra traveled from his Pennsylvania residence to Ohio with plans to meet one of these minors, identified in court documents as "Victim 1."
Rudra had been communicating with Victim 1 for several months before making the interstate trip. Upon arriving in Ohio, he rented a hotel room and picked up the victim from her residence the following morning. Court records indicate that Rudra brought the minor back to the hotel room where, despite her expressed nervousness, he removed her clothes and engaged in sexual intercourse with her.
The federal charges reflect the serious nature of crimes involving the exploitation of children, particularly when they cross state lines or involve the creation and distribution of child sexual abuse material. Federal jurisdiction applies in such cases due to the interstate nature of the conduct and the use of interstate commerce facilities.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio originally imposed the 360-month sentence, which represents the maximum statutory penalty for some federal child exploitation offenses. The substantial prison term reflects both the severity of the crimes and federal sentencing guidelines that impose harsh penalties for offenses involving minors.
In his appeal to the Sixth Circuit, Rudra argued that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Procedural reasonableness challenges typically focus on whether the district court properly calculated the sentencing guidelines range and considered all relevant factors. Substantive reasonableness challenges argue that even if procedures were followed correctly, the resulting sentence is still too harsh given the circumstances of the case and the defendant.
The Sixth Circuit panel, consisting of Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Circuit Judges Danny Boggs and Jane Bloomekatz, rejected both arguments. Circuit Judge Boggs authored the opinion for the court.
Federal sentencing in child exploitation cases has become increasingly severe over the past two decades, with Congress enacting mandatory minimum sentences and enhanced penalties for repeat offenders. The federal system treats crimes against children as among the most serious offenses, reflecting both the vulnerability of the victims and the long-term harm such crimes can cause.
The interstate nature of Rudra's crimes brought them under federal jurisdiction, as opposed to state courts that would typically handle local sexual assault cases. Federal prosecutors often pursue cases involving interstate travel for illegal sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2423, which criminalizes traveling across state lines with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors.
The transportation of child sexual abuse material is prosecuted under separate federal statutes that carry their own severe penalties. These charges often accompany other sex offenses and can result in consecutive sentences that significantly extend a defendant's total prison time.
Court records indicate that Rudra's case involved multiple victims over an extended period, from 2020 to 2023. This pattern of conduct likely influenced the district court's sentencing decision and the appeals court's decision to affirm.
The Sixth Circuit's opinion was marked "not recommended for publication," meaning it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases. However, it demonstrates the appellate court's continued support for substantial sentences in federal child exploitation cases.
The case highlights federal law enforcement's focus on crimes that cross state boundaries and exploit vulnerable populations. Federal agencies, including the FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service, regularly investigate cases involving online predators who use interstate commerce to facilitate crimes against children.
Rudra's 30-year sentence reflects the federal justice system's approach to deterring and punishing those who exploit children. With limited opportunities for early release under federal sentencing rules, Rudra will likely serve the majority of his sentence before becoming eligible for supervised release.
The affirmance by the Sixth Circuit concludes the direct appeal process, though defendants retain limited options for challenging their convictions through other post-conviction procedures. The case serves as another example of federal courts' willingness to impose and uphold lengthy sentences for crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors.