Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 1 of 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RAYMON EVERETT HOLMBERG,

Defendant.

The United States of America, by Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl, Acting United States

Attorney, hereby submits its sentencing memorandum for this Court’s consideration.

I. Introduction

The Presentence Investigative Report (PSIR) calculates Defendant Raymon Holmberg’s

offense level at 21 and his criminal history as I, yielding an advisory range of 37-46 months.

The United States requests that the Court adopt the guideline calculation as set forth in the PSIR

and impose a sentence within the guideline range, rather than a sentence of time served. (Doc.

52, ¶ 41.)

The nature and extent of Holmberg’s criminal conduct—his persistently flying to a

foreign country to engage in commercial sex with some of the most vulnerable boys in the

world; his manipulation of a teenage, Canadian boy to produce sexually explicit images; his long

history of leveraging his power and influence as a high school guidance counselor and a state

legislator to exploit adolescent-age boys and men; and his insatiable sexual appetite for sex

workers throughout the United States all necessitate a within-guideline sentence. Although

Holmberg is presently 81 years of age, his more recent travels to Slovakia and Czech Republic

to engage in commercial sex with boys reflect that he still poses a risk of danger, and as such, a

sentence of time-served is not appropriate.

Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court impose a sentence of

37 months, within the advisory range of the Guidelines. (Id. at ¶ 80.)

II. A Guideline Sentence Meets the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 Requirements

The Eighth Circuit has directed district courts to follow a three-step process in

determining the appropriate sentence. United States v. Solis-Bermudez, 501 F.3d 882, 884 (8th

Cir. 2015). First, the district court must calculate the appropriate guideline range based upon the

applicable offense level and the criminal history category. Id. Next, it must decide if the

guidelines permit a traditional departure. Id. And finally, the district court must determine

whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors justify a variance from the sentencing guidelines. Id.

In determining whether to impose a within-guideline sentence, the sentencing court may

consider, without limitation, any information concerning the background, character, and conduct

of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3661; USSG § 1B1.4. Historically, federal courts have

exercised broad discretion to consider all relevant information at sentencing, “consistent with

their responsibility to sentence the whole person before them.” United States v. Hogue, 66 F.4th

756, 764 (8th Cir. 2023). This may include dismissed or uncharged criminal conduct, as the

facts underlying both relate to a defendant’s background and character. Id. At 765. “In

sentencing, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either

as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.” United

States v. Gant, 663 F.3d 1023, 1029 (8th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up).

In the event that certain important facts are in dispute, the court must provide the parties

an adequate opportunity to present information to the court regarding those facts. United States

v. Combs, 44 F.4th 815, 817 (8th Cir. 2022) (finding that district court committed procedural

error when it used disputed facts relative to dismissed counts in PSIR to sentence defendant). In

resolving any factual disputes, the Court may consider relevant information without regard to its

2
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 3 of 28

admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has

sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy. See USSG § 6A1.3; Grant, 663

F.3d at 1029 (stating that the relevant information need not be admissible under the Federal

Rules of Evidence). In the end, the court shall impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not

greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Jones,

71 F.4th 1083, 1087 (8th Cir. 2023) (finding that district court’s imposition of a within-

guidelines-range was substantially reasonable).

A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

Holmberg did not merely commit one criminal act. Rather, he stands convicted of

repeatedly traveling to Prague, Czech Republic for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex

with underage boys. Since 2011, he took more than 14 trips to Prague where he frequented a

brothel that catered to homosexual men who were looking to engage in commercial sex with

adolescent-age boys; expressly requested others to obtain boys for the purpose of engaging in

commercial sex; and frequented a park adjacent to Wenceslas Square, a location where he

purchased the services of adolescent-age boys for the purpose of sexual activity. Holmberg

traveled directly to Prague on the following occasions:

DEPARTURE RETURN DESTINATION

June 24, 2011 July 5, 2011 Prague, CZ

September 29, 2011 October 4, 2011 Prague, CZ

April 19, 2012 May 3, 2012 Prague, CZ

August 14, 2012 August 20, 2012 Prague, CZ

September 6, 2013 September 17, 2013 Prague, CZ

May 14, 2014 May 26, 2014 Prague, CZ

October 25, 2015 November 3, 2015 Prague, CZ

3
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 4 of 28

April 26, 2016 May 2, 2016 Prague, CZ

October 23, 2016 November 1, 2016 Prague, CZ

May 3, 2017 May 9, 2017 Prague, CZ

September 28, 2018 October 6, 2018 Prague, CZ

June 23, 2019 July 3, 2019 Prague, CZ

September 23, 2020 October 6, 2020 Prague, CZ

August 27, 2021 September 5, 2021 Prague, CZ

North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigations (BCI), Special Agent (SA), and forensic

examiner, Jesse Smith conducted an extensive search of Holmberg’s devices as well as an email

account in the name of “Sean Evan’s,” 1 an alias used by Holmberg to communicate with certain

colleagues and friends about his sexual interest in adolescent-age boys, among other things. This

search revealed that Holmberg discovered the Villa Mansland, a homosexual brothel, in 2011.

On May 7, 2011, Holmberg invited Cooperating Witness 1 (CW1) to join him on a trip to Prague

for the specific purpose of visiting the Villa Mansland. Holmberg sent CW1 an email with a

subject line “Let’s go. This summer.” The email, dated May 7, 2011, included a link to the Villa

Mansland with the following text: “I do wanna go . . . wouldn’t it be fun. The boys rent at

around $60 . . . (sex is extra) lol how was Korea?” CW1 responded: “I’m in for a fun eastern

Europe trip. Let’s get flight planned.” Holmberg in turn responded: “It will be decadent but oh

1
In an email dated February 5, 2011, Holmberg wrote to Cooperating Witness 1 using
the [email protected] account that he communicates with “good friends” using the
“Sean Evan” alias account: “this is my private account which I communicate with
[******] and good friends . . . . We will keep in touch . . .”

4
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 5 of 28

so much fun bro. what happens in Prague -Stays in Prague.” Thereafter, Holmberg and CW1

made arrangements to travel to Prague.

In the meantime, Holmberg, using his alias “Sean Evan,” emailed an unidentified

individual the following on May 24, 2011: “I’ve been traveling . . . going home today for first

time in 3 weeks. going to Kosovo and Prague next month. [T]hat should be fun ... age of

consent in Prague is 15 . . . ouch lol.” In response, this unidentified individual wrote” “Uff so

you maybe find a kid for your pleasure? ” Holmberg in turn responded that he received more

pleasure from this unidentified individual, but that he would “still ‘look’ for some young kid.”

Holmberg’s emails and law enforcement interviews with those who occasionally traveled

with Holmberg revealed that Holmberg chose to travel to Prague because he was looking for

anonymity while engaging in commercial sex with underage boys. That is, he used the alias

“Sean Evan” for more than a decade while he traveled throughout the Czech Republic and

Slovakia. On May 28, 2011, Holmberg and CW1 exchanged emails about their accommodations

at the Villa Mansland. In advance of their trip, Holmberg, using his alias email account “Sean

Evan,” forwarded CW1 numerous emails he received from the Villa Mansland about its “hosts of

the month,” which emails depicted images of adolescent-age boys.

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent (SA) Dan Casetta eventually

interviewed CW1. During these interviews, CW1 admitted to traveling to Prague with Holmberg

in 2011, during which time he observed others refer to Holmberg as “Sean.” CW1 admitted to

having stayed at the Villa Mansland with Holmberg while in Prague. CW1 explained that he

paid for his and Holmberg’s rooms because Holmberg did not want his name on the hotel

registry due to the fact that he was a North Dakota Legislator. According to CW1, Holmberg

traveled to Prague to have sex with prostitutes at the Villa. Of course, CW1 did not know the

exact ages of these prostitutes, but he acknowledged that they were potentially underage based

5
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 6 of 28

upon their appearance. CW1 was aware that Holmberg liked the company of young males, and

according to CW1, Holmberg told him the age of consent was 16 years in Prague, unless it was

for the purpose of commercial sex in which case it was 18 years of age.

CW1 also stated that while in Prague, Holmberg showed him Wenceslas Square Park,

where Holmberg would pick up prostitutes. Although CW1 did not see any prostitutes in the

park on the day he walked through it with Holmberg, CW1 knew Holmberg liked to go there

because the prostitutes were young. After CW1 and Holmberg returned home from their trip to

Prague, Holmberg told him something to the effect of: “if you think I travel thousands of miles to

have sex with a 16-year-old, you’d be right.”

The investigation further revealed that Holmberg traveled to Prague with a University of

North Dakota student, who law enforcement later identified as Cooperating Witness/Victim 2

(CW2). While in Prague with Holmberg in 2016—roughly five years after he first discovered

the Villa Mansland—CW2 reported to HSI that other individuals were still referring to

Holmberg as “Sean Evan” and Holmberg instructed CW2 to do the same while they were in

Prague together. CW2 stated that in advance of their trip, Holmberg sent him information about

“some sort of Villa,” located outside the city of Prague, where one could hire a prostitute.

Because Holmberg shared stories with CW2 about his engaging in commercial sex throughout

the United States, he knew that Holmberg’s purpose in traveling to Prague was very specific: to

engage in commercial sex with even younger males.

CW2 also reported to law enforcement about his and Holmberg’s activities while in

Prague. They traveled separately to Prague and later met at Hotel Julis on Wenceslas Square,

which is located next to the park CW1 mentioned, where CW2 observed young male prostitutes

between the ages of 12 and 16. During their first night in Prague, Holmberg met a young man,

whom Holmberg previously met at the Villa. This young man referred to Holmberg as “Sean

6
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 7 of 28

Evan.” Holmberg paid the young man to provide them a tour around the city, after which he

engaged in sexual activity with both Holmberg and CW2. CW2 also said that Holmberg later

went to the brothel, but CW2 chose to stay back. Upon his return, Holmberg shard stories with

CW2 about his sexual exploits with young males. Although CW2 was not aware of their ages, he

knew that Holmberg preferred underage boys.

More recently, HSI and BCI investigators identified two Slovakian men (“PH” and “LP”)

who were familiar with Holmberg, one of whom who previously worked at the Villa Mansland.

Both these young men had a relationship with Holmberg whom they only knew as “Sean Evan.”

The older of the men first met Holmberg while he worked at the Villa Mansland in 2011, when

PH would have been 22 years of age. PH confirmed that the Villa Mansland had male

prostitutes, and on one occasion, PH told HSI and BCI agents that Holmberg asked him to

arrange a “boy” for him. PH also admitted to telling Holmberg about a park located near the

railroad station, where Holmberg could expect to find young male prostitutes.

In May 2024, investigators also interviewed LP, a young Slovakian man to whom

Holmberg sent numerous sexually explicit images via Viber, an end-to-end encryption platform.

These images depicted both adolescent-age boys as well as young adult males, including a young

adult male from North Dakota. LP acknowledged meeting Holmberg on at least two occasions

and receiving images of adolescent-age boys from Holmberg whom he only knew as “Sean.” LP

reported that Holmberg requested him to find a boy for the purpose of sex, but he declined to do

so. For instance, on May 13, 2019, LP wrote via Viber:

LP: “What you doing today?

Holmberg: I like suckling

LP: Oh

Holmberg: Only on young blonde boys”

7
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 8 of 28

Later, on July 25, 2019, Holmberg wrote LP that he had two requirements before he would travel

to Slovakia:

Holmberg: “There are only two requirements that I have to come and visit you soon.
The airplane ticket must be a reasonable price, and you have to guarantee that I will
have a boy to have sex with when I am there.

Again, on July 29, 2021, Holmberg wrote that perhaps he could find his own boy while in

Prague. Specifically, Holmberg wrote: “I have family members who I have promised to buy

crystal for. I do not mind being in Prague alone. Maybe I will find a boy.” During this same

conversation, Holmberg also wrote that perhaps he also could find a boy in Slovakia, where LP

resided: “Maybe I will find a boy in kosiche.”

Finally, on September 20, 2021, Holmberg asked LP whether he engaged in sexual

activity with a boy, to which LP responded:

Holmberg: “have you ever fucked a boy?

LP: No

Holmberg: it feels awesome. much better than in a napkin.”

The boys and young men with whom Holmberg sought to engage in commercial sex were

some of the most vulnerable in the world. Especially in Prague, they were homeless boys and

men often recruited to work at the Villa by its owner because of their vulnerabilities. One such

email Holmberg received and forwarded to CW1 on June 18, 2011, entitled “Travel report of

Harry to varies [sic] Eastern countries,” details the Villa Mansland’s owner’s travels throughout

Eastern Europe during which the owner, identified only as Harry, photographs himself with

various adolescent-age boys. The owner made clear that he had already invited some of these

boys--who were depicted in the images he sent to Holmberg--to join him in Prague at the Villa.

Holmberg also forwarded CW1 images of young males that were in the Villa Mansland’s

newsletter, but some of these images were not recovered during the forensic examination. For

8
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 9 of 28

instance, on June 20, 2011, Holmberg sent CW1 the following email: “here are the two I really

liked....especially the first one...(I would definitely tour him) they were in latest [newsletter]

from the Villa, but I tried to forward them, but it didn't work.” In an email, dated June 21, 2011,

Holmberg explained to CW1 that he saw only three images. “Didn't like Jiri but loved Remus.

Other dude ok. I loved to be sucked.”

The forensic examination of Holmberg’s device and email account also revealed that he

had direct communications with employees of the Villa Mansland following his and CW1’s July

2011 trip to Prague. On September 1, 2011, one such employee wrote to Holmberg that he was

the new “office manager at Prague’s unique gay resort Villa Mansland.” The office manager

explained that the Villa was a place where older and younger “guys” meet and he invited

Holmberg to Skype him. In another email, dated September 5, 2011, the office manager thanked

Holmberg and others who Skyped him after his last message. The office manager told Holmberg

he was looking forward to seeing him in person and he told him about a guest at the Villa who

requested to use the whirlpool bath in the Wellness Center “with a couple of boys he’d met here

[at the Villa Mansland]!” Continuing that same day, Holmberg forwarded these emails to CW1

and asked: “where were these dudes when we were there?”

In addition, SA Smith recovered emails which reflect Holmberg’s consciousness of guilt.

On July 25, 2012, Holmberg forwarded an email to CW1 entitled “Caution—Police raided Villa

Mansland is Imminent!” The original email sent to Villa friends read, in part: “due to the

suspicion of commercial prostitution and drug abuse was found in the next few weeks, a police

raid in house of Villa Mansland. To avoid being implicated in it you should avoid the house!”

Hours later, the owner of the Villa Mansland sent Holmberg, and others, an email explaining that

he never sent the above-mentioned email about a police raid. The owner explained that he

suspected a competitor sent the email and he welcomed all to return to the Villa Mansland.

9
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 10 of 28

Holmberg immediately forwarded this email to CW1, writing “Thank God,” which reveals that

he considered himself fortunate to not have been caught up in any police raid involving criminal

activity.

Finally, the investigation revealed that Holmberg routinely bragged to a select group of

trusted individuals about his sexual exploitation of boys. For instance, on February 21, 2011,

Holmberg emailed his longtime friend an image of an adolescent-age boy and posed the

following question: “what think of my twink?” In response, his friend responded that “the

twink” was too young for him and Holmberg in turn wrote: “no one is ever to [sic] young …

remember Prague.” In another instance, Holmberg emailed CW1 on his return flight from

Amsterdam to Minneapolis on July 5, 2011: “Got rewarded for my sins in Prague. Upgraded

from Amsterdam to MSP.” The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from these

comments is that Holmberg was boasting about his engaging in sexual activity with young boys

in Prague.

Then, while in Prague in 2015, Holmberg emailed his longtime friend two images of the

same young male. In the email, dated October 30, 2015, Holmberg wrote that he “had 45

minutes with this specimen,” referring to the young male in the images. Simply put, Holmberg

was celebrating his most recent conquest with his trusted friend.

Likewise, Holmberg discussed his exploits with those he victimized in North Dakota. In

2012, Holmberg told SS, a former student of Holmberg’s, that “you’d be amazed what you could

do with a 12-year-old boy in . . . .” a foreign country which he could not remember. At

Holmberg’s invitation, SS joined Holmberg at a political event in Bismarck. SS spent the night

in Holmberg’s hotel room and in the morning, he awoke to Holmberg performing fellatio on

him. SS never consented to this activity, and he immediately took steps to leave during which

time Homberg made the reprehensible comment about his traveling to a foreign country to

10
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 11 of 28

engage in sex with a 12-year-old boy. Holmberg’s conduct in this instance reflects that he

sincerely believed his being in a position of power shielded him from the consequences of his

actions while in Prague. By 2012, Holmberg had already traveled to Prague on four occasions,

not to mention dozens of other foreign countries and he was no doubt embolden by the belief that

he continued to get away with his criminal conduct time after time, trip after trip.

During the investigation of Morgan-Derosier, HSI interviewed several of his adolescent-

age employees, some of whom engaged in commercial sex with Holmberg. One such employee,

BLT, reported that Holmberg paid him for massages. After BLT quit working for Morgan-

Derosier because he was not getting paid, he returned to Northern Minnesota where Holmberg

drove to pick him up and return him to Grand Forks for the purpose of their engaging in

commercial sex. Facebook Messenger chats between BLT and Holmberg corroborated BLT’s

statement and Holmberg later admitted to the same. During this incident, BLT told SA Casetta

that he recalled Holmberg telling him that he wanted to go to Peru or Prague “to fuck 15-year-

old boys.”

Holmberg often told sex workers about the purpose of his travels to Prague. For

example, he emailed a sex worker who was seemingly in Virginia: “love your look and

comments. I'm in Prague, where the age of consent is 16. Lol. Just got here for a months stay.

If you send me email I will contact you when I get back. Lots of sinning in Prague.” He made

similar statements in his communications with other yet unidentified individuals.

It is impossible to know how many boys Holmberg victimized in Prague and elsewhere

because law enforcement was not able to identify them, in part, because his visits spanned more

than a decade and they were homeless runaways who often lived in poverty. But, make no

mistake, this is not a victimless crime. There is no doubt that Holmberg’s exploitation of them

has had devastating consequences for them, which are long-lasting.

11
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 12 of 28

B. The History and Characteristics of the Defendant

Holmberg’s criminal activity was not limited to his traveling to Prague for the purpose of

engaging in commercial sex with underage boys. He also used online deception and trickery to

mislead and manipulate a 16-year-old Canadian boy to produce images depicting himself

engaged in sexually explicit conduct. In addition, Holmberg has a long history of leveraging his

power and influence as a North Dakota Legislator over young men to obtain sexual favors. The

United States requests the Court weigh these facts in determining the appropriate sentence.

1. Catphishing Scheme

SA Smith discovered communications between Holmberg, using the

[email protected] email account and a 16-year-old user on the online chat forum “teen

boys pro circumcision@yahoogroups. com.” Holmberg found his victim in this chatroom that

was a dedicated virtual space for teenage boys who had just undergone a circumcision surgery.

On November 24, 2012, the boy posted to the group: “Hello, Im [BH] I am so happy to be apart

of the group. Im 16, and i was just circumcised last summer.” He went on to discuss the surgery.

In response, Holmberg congratulated him and wrote the following: “. . . tell me about the pain

and sensation problems. That’s what I fear and holds me back. am thinking of having it done as

an 18th birthday present to myself.” Holmberg then went on to further mislead BH about his true

identify.

Eventually, Holmberg began emailing BH directly, even requesting pictures of him. BH

responded, in part: “Im 16, but again i don’t know how this would be classified. Exposure or

porn. I think exposure. as long as [it] stays within the group and no one makes copys [sic] I think

it would be ok. can you send me the moderator email?” Holmberg, all while representing he was

of like age, continued to ask BH about the procedure and he later asked him whether his

circumcision affected his masturbating, his orgasms and later Holmberg asked about the length

12
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 13 of 28

of BH’s “dick?” In many instances, BH, who was clearly naïve and vulnerable, was evidently

uncomfortable with these questions.

Holmberg and BH continued to exchange emails during which BH revealed he suffered

from low self-esteem, bad acne, and bullying. Holmberg shared that he too was an adolescent

suffering from many of these same struggles, including bullying and bad acne. Holmberg later

wrote: “look forward to seeing as much of you as you want. (remember, I dared showed pubes...

LOL).”

After Holmberg requested BH to send him another photo, BH wrote “Sure but im 16

and u do the same.” BH sent Holmberg a photo of himself, and Holmberg wrote that BH was

“very good looking.” At Holmberg’s repeated request, BH continued to send Holmberg photos

of himself, including an image of BH bare-chested. During their online conversations, BH

complained about being too thin and hairless, both of which Holmberg wrote that he preferred.

Relentless in his request for more pictures of BH, Holmberg continued to write:

• “How are you coming on more pictures?”

• “Did you forget about me, or hate me?”

• “How you coming on other pics? So looking forward to them.”

• “Any more pics yet? Looking forward to it. “

• “You can go ahead and send any pictures you wl [sic] will let you know what I think”

• “This is a picture from my balcony two nights ago in Miami Beach. [image.jpeg] Please
send me thos [sic] pics of you. Do you wanna see mine?”

• “Originally you were going to send some pictures of your dick and I said maybe not but I
think it's fine and I'd love to see them.”

Holmberg and BH exchanged emails for months, and eventually Holmberg asked BH “how

do you jack?” and “you ever taste your cum?” To convince BH to produce and send sexually

explicit images of himself, Holmberg sent an image of a penis that he represented was his and then

13
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 14 of 28

wrote that it was BH’s turn to share. That same day, BH sent Holmberg an image of his penis.

Holmberg immediately responded “Awesome cock bro. The scar will recede over time. Bet it’s an

interesting feel however.”

Holmberg continued to persistently request more pictures of BH all under the guise that he

was concerned about his surgery. Upon receiving an image of BH’s penis, Holmberg responded:

“Awesome, your healing is coming along very well. Your scar will be less pronounced over time.

Here’s another of mine. I will erase yours, thanks, and feel free to send more.” Eventually,

Holmberg told BH he traveled a lot and inquired whether “it’s possible we could ever meet?” BH

replied that it depended, but that he would be more likely to meet with Holmberg after BH turned

17. Holmberg remained in contact with BH, and BH continued to send Holmberg pictures of his

genitals at Holmberg’s request.

On March 5, 2013, Holmberg seemingly frightened sent a final email requesting BH to

erase his communications: “Delete all my emails, received and sent and all contact info. In about

a week I will contact you through different account. You will know it’s me by what I say.”

HSI and BCI agents later identified BH, a Canadian resident, but sadly they were never

able to interview him because he took his own life in 2021. However, HSI and Canadian law

enforcement interviewed BH’s stepfather who resides in Alberta and who positively identified BH

in the images that were recovered from Holmberg’s email account.

This catfishing scheme demonstrates Holmberg’s sophisticated and skillful grooming

techniques. Using a fake name, and misrepresenting his age and likeness, Holmberg was able to

successfully convince a vulnerable and confused 16-year-old boy to produce sexually explicit

images of himself for Holmberg’s sexual pleasure. This didn’t happen overnight, and it didn’t

happen without patience. Holmberg first went looking for such a boy in a chat room that was

dedicated to young boys who had just undergone a circumcision procedure. And then Holmberg,

14
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 15 of 28

using skills he likely developed and honed as a high school counselor, listened to his problems,

including his concerns about his dying cat, thereby gaining a vulnerable boy’s trust. Throughout

their online relationship, Holmberg requested images that were at first seemingly innocent and

later, using deception, he convinced him to create lascivious images of himself. Unfortunately,

law enforcement was never able to learn what became of their relationship because BH eventually

took his own life, but no doubt Holmberg’s conduct contributed to his struggles.

2. Holmberg’s Abuse of Power

Even before Holmberg began traveling to Prague, he sexually exploited adolescent-age

men throughout this country, some of whom he began grooming when they were underage

students at Grand Forks Central High School and others over whom he leveraged his influence

and power to obtain sexual favors while attending the University of North Dakota. There is one

obvious and consequential fact that put him in position to do this: Holmberg was an elected

official at the time of all this conduct, which allowed a man of such advanced age to successfully

solicit young men as young as 18 and 19 years of age. That is, he was an elected official and the

Chairman of Appropriations, no less--arguably the most powerful legislator in North Dakota.

These circumstances provided him (1) with a purpose and means to be physically present in so

many cities across the country, where he routinely engaged in commercial sex with young men

and (2) with power and influence that he leveraged over consenting young men for sexual favors

who were nonetheless vulnerable.

For instance, Holmberg, using his alias email account [email protected], wrote to

another unidentified user who seemingly was aware of his true identity:

“Had a great legislative forum yesterday in which I got blowjobs from Republicans
and Democrats for all the power I have.

The appropriate response is ‘aw shucks.’ I learned a long time ago the more power you
have the more you have to use it sparingly and discreetly. The previous chairman of

15
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 16 of 28

appropriations was ham-handed and greedy in his approach to power, and was removed
as chairman.

We have roughly 20 days left of the session. If we get done early, I fear for you guys
because I am sure to come up with some reasons/excuses to come and visit. I might drive
to Champaign, but would fly to Georgia.

I will stay in power as long as I don’t get caught in a motel room with a 17-year-old
boy. Sigh. This is just like being in the garden of Eden. The most delicious fruit from
the tree of good and evil is forbidden. . . .”

Importantly, Holmberg engaged in countless acts of commercial sex with young men

while traveling around the world. The forensic examination of his devices and email account

revealed that he made arrangements on countless occasions to engage in commercial sex in cities

as near as Fargo and Bismarck and as far away as London, Boston, Chicago, Phoenix, and

Washington DC, among other cities—often during the time that he was traveling for state

business. The following is just a smattering of these arrangements:

• On November 20, 2007, using his alias [email protected] email account, Holmberg

wrote:

Subject: hey, from Sean at the Ritz Carlton

Johnny,

Had a great time with you. You are a beautiful boy, who needs someone to take care of
him, hold him gently, and yes, fuck his boy pussy.

That was an awesome boy pussy you have. . . . If you are around when I get back to
Maimai [Sic] Beach in January, I hope we can get together and decide what to do.

• On November 22, 2008, Holmberg wrote his friend and asked him which sex

worker in California he should hire: “the one is $120 and I have enough cash. This one I don’t

know his price. Won’t pay more than that, but think this dude IS beyond my price range. BTW

are you going to ‘scrub’ your phone before your trip to DC?

• On August 31, 2009, Holmberg wrote his longtime friend “our kinda guy” to

16
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 17 of 28

which his friend responded, “little young.” Holmberg in turn responded: “old enough to bleed..

old enough to butcher. . . oh wait . . that might now [sic] apply to dudes. Lol.”

• On October 24, 2009, Holmberg planned to meet with a sex worker at

his hotel in Chicago located at “900 block of Michigan.” He wrote: “I’m at conference but can

sneak way for a time, no problem. . . I don’t have constant contact through Hotmail. . . texting

would work for me if it’s okay for you. . 701-739-5334 hope to ‘meat’ you soon. . lol.”

Additional messages infer they met for the purpose of commercial sex.

• On July 1, 2012, Holmberg reached out to a sex worker he had met at the Candlewood

Suites by the Fargodome the preceding summer by writing: “We hooked up at candelwood suits

and it was awesome. You ok for another discreet visit?”

• On September 25, 2012, Holmberg wrote another of his friends that he just hired

the services of a sex worker while traveling in China: “I had great massage for ¥200. Was

excellent with very happy ending. He was like 130 lbs. smaller equipment but huge huge load.

This hotel is ¥2,800 per night. Corporate rate.” In response his friend wrote: “Well you’re

probably on you’re way to my Second Home City, Hong Kong. You’re going to love HK!!

Immediately you will notice you’re not in Kansas anymore, Kansas of course being China. If

you haven’t be [sic].”

• On September 4, 2013, Holmberg invited a sex worker to his hotel in Las Vegas:

“Embassy suites, 4315 Swenson St., Room 628. Just come and knock. I’ll be in bed reading.”

• On August 13, 2013, Holmberg sent his longtime friend an image of an

adolescent-age masseuse to which his friend replied: “Did you drug him? Is he legal? And if so,

which countries?” In response, Holmberg wrote: “Gotta pay him 80 bones. But just too cute. He

says he’s 19. I believe him. CList. M4M then add massage. Must be code for pay. Lol”

• On August 28, 2013, Holmberg sent the following in response to an online

17
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 18 of 28

advertisement: “Im in Bismarck tonight at Kelly. does $100 seem reasonable? as late as you

want. I get there about 5:00 pm and have a dinner from 7-9:00 pm then back at hotel.”

• On September 10, 2014, Holmberg negotiated the following with a sex worker identified

as a “full time student”: “I am off to dinner. Back by about 8:30. $60 plus transportation. What

will that cost? Sean” The worker responded “120,” to which Holmberg in turn responded

“Sounds ok. Look forward to great time. 9:00 to be sure?”

• On November 19, 2014, Holmberg using Craigslist, solicited a sex worker to come

to his hotel in Scottsdale, Arizona: “Excellent. Going to reception and be back in room by 7:15.

I’ve been flying most of the day and really need an erotic massage. What is your fee for an

awesome time? I’m at Fairmont Scottsdale Princess. Awesome room.”

• Four days later, while still in Scottsdale, Arizona, Holmberg arranged for yet

another sex worker to come to his hotel. The sex worker eventually wrote over Craigslist: “Hope

you enjoyed yesterday’s massage.”

• On September 15, 2015, Holmberg wrote over Craigslist: “I have a dinner so it

would be 930. The hotel has secure elevator so we would have to meet downstairs, nothing like

a exotic message with happy ending to complete a day of sitting at meetings.”

• On December 8, 2015, Holmberg responded to a sex worker via a Craigslist Ad in

Washington, D.C. for “The Right Touch – m4m” by stating: “I’m interested. Staying at Marriott

Wardman Park. Nice king bed. Interested in erotic massage. Cost?” The worker responded, “Hi,

ok what time would you like me to come over? It’s 120 for the hour.” Holmberg affirmed the

request by responding, “The sooner the better. I’ve been flying all day.”

This ongoing activity—in city after city, year after year—not only demonstrates

Holmberg’s proclivity for young sex workers, but it also reflects his true purpose in traveling to

Prague. That is, he did not repeatedly travel to Prague to engage in commercial sex with young

18
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 19 of 28

men as he was already engaging in this very activity on hundreds of occasions in dozens of cities

throughout the United States. He traveled to Prague because he had a sexual interest that could

not be legally met in the United States: underage boys. As such, he mostly limited his hands-on

offending of underage boys while traveling abroad where he believed he could get away with it.

Nevertheless, his use of domestic sex workers has also contributed to the demand for illegal sex

trafficking because buyers of sex, such as Holmberg, do not distinguish between willing sex

workers and those who are being trafficked by force, fraud or coercion.

3. Holmberg’s Past Exploitation of Young Boys and Men in North Dakota

Although most of Holmberg’s hands-on offending of underage boys was limited to

Prague, where he knew he could get away with it, he nonetheless still preyed on vulnerable

young boys and young men while in North Dakota.

Investigators first learned of allegations surrounding Holmberg’s sexual interest in

underage boys during an interview in May 2016. SS reported to the FBI in Spokane,

Washington that he was victimized by Holmberg decades earlier when he was a student at Grand

Forks Central High School. According to SS’s victim impact statement, Holmberg began

grooming him when he was a 16-year-old student at Grand Forks Central High School during a

time when he was extremely vulnerable. During this time, SS was living in an abusive home,

abusing drugs and alcohol and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder—all of which

Holmberg was aware as his guidance counselor. But rather than prioritizing SS’s well-being and

safety, Holmberg used the situation to manipulate SS. Holmberg presented himself to SS as a

“trusted confidant,” and consequently SS came to rely on Holmberg for stability and support. SS

explained that Holmberg gave him attention that he did not receive at home, but it was not the

type of attention one would expect to receive from a guidance counselor. Holmberg’s attention

of SS was a means to an end of sexually exploiting SS.

19
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 20 of 28

SS later moved to Washington and relapsed, at which point he reached out to Holmberg

who sent him money—money which Holmberg knew would be used to support SS’s drug habit.

But the money did not come without expectations tied to it. After SS turned 17, Holmberg told

him that he would give him money in exchange for SS producing videos of himself engaged in

sexually explicit conduct. Using a camcorder provided to him by Holmberg, SS went on to

record himself engaged in sexually explicit conduct. On one occasion, Holmberg even flew to

Washington to film SS while engaged in such conduct. Eventually, these videos were recovered

during the search warrant of Holmberg’s residence and investigators flew to Washington to meet

with SS. Although he could not definitely say whether he was underage in the videos, the videos

nonetheless make clear that he wanted no part of what was happening. After having viewed

these videos--produced nearly three decades earlier--SS explained that one video in particular

haunts him because it depicts his younger self in obvious distress. To use SS’s words: “it was

not a consensual relationship,” despite SS’s age. Holmberg went on to exploit his relationship

with this vulnerable young man for years. SS’s victim-impact statement conveys his plight with

Holmberg and the devastating consequences even years later. Holmberg’s sexualization and

objectification of his former student continues to have a long term psychological, emotional and

physical impact on SS

There were other instances where Holmberg took advantage of vulnerable youth. In

2013, when Holmberg was 69 years of age, he solicited sex from RMJ, a 17-year-old boy who

was attending Grand Forks Central High School. HSI investigators interviewed RMJ who

reported that he met Holmberg whom he knew as “Sean” via a dating app. Holmberg invited

RMJ to his condominium on at least two occasions during which time they engaged in sexual

activity. On each occasion, Holmberg directed RMJ to park his vehicle in Holmberg’s garage so

as not to alert anyone that he was at the residence. During the first incident, RMJ was only 17

20
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 21 of 28

years of age when Holmberg gave him a “massage” that included sexual activity. And although

there is some question about RMJ’s age when they met on a second occasion for sex, he was

nonetheless still attending high school. With the benefit of hindsight, RMJ recognizes their

relationship as “sickening, gross, and disgusting.”

Over the course of decades, Holmberg has also used his power and influence as a state

senator to exploit young men who attended the University of North Dakota (UND). HSI

investigators interviewed former UND students who reported that he leveraged influence as a

legislator to obtain sexual favors. CW2 reported that he engaged in commercial sex with

Holmberg over a three-year period while he was a student at UND. CW2 was indigent and he

reported that he used the money he received from Holmberg for groceries and rent. Eventually,

Holmberg ceased paying him cash in exchange for the sexual activity and instead brought him to

UND hockey games, where together they sat in the President’s Suite. These hockey tickets

represented a right to access to some of the most influential people in the state; namely, the

President of the University, and on occasion the Governor of North Dakota and the federal

delegation. CW2 explained that if he accepted Holmberg’s invitation to attend a UND hockey

game as Holmberg’s guest in the President’s Suite, there was always an expectation that he

would have to engage in sexual activity with Holmberg. Holmberg also invited this same UND

student to occasionally travel with him during which time he would have access to VIPs. In each

instance, CW2 stated that he was expected to engage in sexual activity with Holmberg in

exchange for the travel.

Another former UND student stated that he engaged in sexual activity with Holmberg at

Holmberg’s longtime friend’s residence more than twenty years ago when he was a student at

UND. Even though he was not sexually interested in Holmberg, he maintained a relationship

with him because he acknowledged that it would benefit his career. This was common practice

21
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 22 of 28

for Holmberg. He routinely implied that he was in a position to help these young men in

exchange for their engaging in sexual activity with him.

4. Holmberg’s Past Exploitation of His Young Adult Staff

Holmberg’s corruption extended to his staff hires. During the forensic examination of

Holmberg’s devices and email account, SA Smith located numerous conversations between

Holmberg and various others about a young staff member employed by Holmberg. These

conversations clearly reflects that Holmberg hired Cooperating Witness/Victim 3 (CW3) for the

sole purpose of engaging in sexual activity with him.

Investigators interviewed CW3 who reported that he was working at a men’s clothing

store 2 in Bismarck when he met Holmberg. Holmberg came into the store to purchase a suit and

thereafter Holmberg offered him a job as a consultant. On March 8, 2017, Holmberg, using

corresponding email accounts [email protected] and [email protected], sent

emails to an out-of-state lobbyist that corroborated CW3’s report:

Holmberg: “I met him at [men’s clothing store] way [sic] he’s the guy who sells the
clothes. When I was in Prague he was also traveling in Europe alone so we hung out in
Prague for three days. He currently goes to school in Fargo, but comes to hockey games
with me, and we go out and eat and things. Really a nice guy about 22 years old.

Lobbyist: Do you guys have sex?

Holmberg: Not yet. Lol Would you bed with him?

Lobbyist: IDK. got a pic of him?

Holmberg: He’s funny And cute Sent you his ‘G’ rated pics

Lobbyist: send the r pics

Holmberg: They are ‘R++’. I would need to use my Nephews account if that’s ok.”

2
The name of the men’s clothing store is not identified to protect the identity of CW3.
22
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 23 of 28

CW3 also reported that Holmberg brought him to political events throughout the United

States and UND hockey games where, like many others, he gave this young man access to other

VIPs. The investigation revealed that Holmberg requested free tickets from both NDSU and

UND for various sporting events during which time he took CW3 as well as other young men as

guests. Below are some of the emails that SA Smith recovered from Holmberg’s devices:

• “[CW3] guest on Saturday.”

• “1 guest Fright night at hockey will be [CW3]”

• “[CW3] at hockey tonight, [CW2] on Saturday.”

• “[CW3] will be my guest Sept. 7th NDSU v. UND”

• “Saturday is [CW3], Friday is [CW2]”

• “[CW3] again. Sorry.”

• “[CW3] will be my guest.”

• “Thank you so much. We will see you. Ray and [CW3].”

• “[CW3] and [CW2] will by my guests. Can I get back as to which date they will be
attending. I can’t do Sunday.”

• “Of course [CW3] will be “the guest”

According to CW3, Holmberg seemingly expected something in return from him in exchange for

Holmberg introducing him to other people. CW3 also suspected that Holmberg was pandering

him to other individuals who were also involved in politics because these other people began

propositioning him.

The investigation further revealed that Holmberg flew CW3 to Boston, Massachusetts;

San Juan, Porta Rico; San Diego and Los Angeles, California; Charleston, South Carolina; Fort

Myers, Miami Beach, Naples, Florida; Phoenix, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; New Orleans,

Louisiana; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Chicago, Illinois; and Washington,

23
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 24 of 28

D.C. CW3 reported that Holmberg paid for all these trips. According to CW3, Holmberg also

nominated CW3 to take a foreign trip paid for by Global Bridges, a program funded by the North

Dakota Legislature. Because of the COVID pandemic, however, CW3 reported that the trip was

cancelled. Global Bridges is the same state-subsidized program which funded at least one of

Holmberg’s trips to Prague. Meanwhile, Holmberg told other individuals he had plans to engage

in sexual activity with CW3—a young man who was paid with funds from Holmberg’s

campaign. Holmberg wrote to another user, via Viber:

• “. . . Gonna fuck [CW3] now.”

• “Sean fucking [CW3]”

• “I’ve got a peek at [CW3’s] cock yesterday. He was getting out of the shower. It is so
nice.”

When interviewed by investigators, CW3 described an incident where he caught Holmberg

spying on him while showering in a hotel bathroom, thereby corroborating the above email.

CW3 also told investigators that during the time that he worked for Holmberg, CW3

received sexually explicit and racist material from Holmberg’s [email protected] email

account. SA Smith located emails that corroborated CW3’s report. Although CW3 was

uncomfortable receiving this material, he did not make it known to Holmberg because Holmberg

made it clear to CW3 that he was vindicative and had influence and power in politics.

Holmberg’s offending conduct over the course of decades—his catphishing scheme

involving a 16-year-old boy and his leverage of power and authority as an elected official to

sexually exploit young men and boys—can only be described as corruption. That is, he used his

position to serve his own ends. He took international and domestic trips often paid for by the

North Dakota Legislature all the while sexually exploiting young men and boys. And when

necessary, he gave young men access to other public officials in exchange for sex or made it

24
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 25 of 28

known that sex was expected in return for such access. These are not the actions of a man with

good character and the Court should weigh this relevant conduct in imposing sentence.

5. Need for the Sentence Imposed to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense,
Promote Respect for the Law, and Provide Just Punishment

The next factor that the district court must consider in imposing sentence is “the need for

the sentence imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,

and to provide just punishment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). This is often referred to as the “just

desserts” concept, which should be reflected in all sentences.

Courts have long recognized that child sex crimes are among the most egregious of

societal and criminal offenses. There are few defendants, who over the course of so many years,

have sexually exploited so many young males, some of whom were as young as 13 years of age

and nearly all of whom were disadvantage. Holmberg treated these young boys as commodities,

sending images of them to other like-minded individuals and inviting others to comment on

whether the boys’ attractiveness was worth the money charged in exchange for their services.

Even though investigators were not able to identity these boys, in large part because these

activities took place in foreign countries, make no mistake that this is not a victimless crime.

The crime occurred against boys who today are young men who are almost certainly

experiencing psychological, emotional and physical injuries. The Court only need look at the

statements of the young men who Holmberg exploited in North Dakota decades ago to get

confirmation of this fact. All of these young men in North Dakota shared a common

characteristic with the young men in Prague. They were all disadvantaged youth, who suffered

emotional and physical trauma and/or drug addiction, thereby making them more vulnerable to

Holmberg’s advances. Holmberg admitted this much when he was interviewed by investigators

immediately following the search of his residence. When confronted with the uncontroverted

evidence that he was engaging in commercial sex with Morgan-Derosier’s employees and a
25
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 26 of 28

former student, he explained that they were either “troubled” or they were addicted to drugs as

justification for his conduct. And when asked about his traveling to a foreign country to engage

in commercial sex with young boys, he explained as justification for his conduct that it was legal

to engage in commercial sex with underage boys in the Czech Republic. It is not, but

nonetheless his statements to this effect demonstrate that he fails to recognize the wrongfulness

of his conduct: his traveling to another country for the sole purpose of engaging in commercial

sex with underage, vulnerable boys. To sentence Holmberg to a sentence of time-served would

therefore be a travesty given his long history of sexually exploiting young boys and men.

6. Need to Afford Adequate Deterrence and to Protect the Public

Finally, the Court must consider the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate

deterrence to criminal conduct and the need for the sentence to protect the public from further

crimes of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B) & (C). The former factor concerns

general deterrence, and the latter factor concerns specific deterrence and incapacitation.

The deterrence objective of sentencing is particularly compelling in a case such as this

because other well-resourced men are committing child sex tourism offenses with the

expectation that their conduct will never be discovered, investigated nor prosecuted. To impose

a sentence of time-served would represent a missed opportunity to deter criminal conduct that

directly impacts the health and welfare of children located in other countries. A term of

imprisonment therefore should be imposed to engender respect for the laws that specifically

criminalize United States citizens from traveling to foreign countries for the purpose of sexually

abusing children, no matter if such countries have laws that also prohibit such conduct.

Sentencing Holmberg to a time-served sentence would also create an unacceptable risk to

the community. Despite his advanced age, he continues to pose a danger to underage boys. As

recent as 2021, Holmberg traveled to Slovakia and the Czech Republic during which time he

26
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 27 of 28

specifically requested other individuals to find him a boy with whom he could engage in sexual

activity. Specifically, Holmberg expressly requested LP to find him a boy in advance of his

travels and he sent LP images of adolescent-age boys. Then, on September 20, 2021, Holmberg

told LP that he had engaged in sex with a boy. The facts of this case make clear that he is not too

old to continue offending against young boys.

In addition, Holmberg continued to send images of young boys to PH and LP in Slovakia

via Viber, thereby demonstrating his sexual interest in young boys which is a risk factor for

recidivism. And lastly, Holmberg continued to persistently engage in commercial sex with

young men up until his arrest in North Dakota. Twenty-year-old BLT, one of several of Morgan-

Derosier’s employees, told SA Casetta that he engaged in sexual activity as recent as July 2021,

mere months before the search warrant was executed at his residence. Facebook Messenger

conversations between BLT and Holmberg corroborated that Holmberg made plans to drive to

Minnesota to pick up BLT in July 2021. Later, Holmberg would admit to picking up BLT in

Minnesota and returning him to North Dakota where they engaged in commercial sex.

In the end, Holmberg’s long history of exploiting young boys illustrates an obvious

picture of what Holmberg’s likely recidivism would be like: near-certain victimization of

vulnerable underage boys and adolescent-age men. Given the risk of future harm to the public if

his predatory conduct is not stymied, a term of meaningful imprisonment must be imposed to

engender respect for the laws that prohibit United States citizens from traveling in foreign

commerce for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex with children and deter others from

engaging in similar criminal conduct.

III. CONCLUSION

When the Court considers all the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the

Guidelines, a term of imprisonment of 37 months followed by a lifetime period of supervised

27
 Case 3:23-cr-00206-DLH Document 60 Filed 03/19/25 Page 28 of 28

release is the reasonable and just sentence. Such a sentence generally deters the behavior

exemplified by Holmberg, imposes a reasonable sentence given his criminal conduct, imposes a

sentence that will promote respect for the law, considers the kinds of sentences available and the

sentencing range established by the Guidelines, will protect the public from further crimes of

Holmberg, and avoids unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants.

Dated March 19, 2025

JENNIFER KLEMETSRUD PUHL

By: _____________________________
/s/ Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl
JENNIFER KLEMETSRUD PUHL
Acting United States Attorney
ND Bar ID 05672
655 First Avenue North, Suite 250
Fargo, ND 58102-4932
(701) 297-7400
[email protected]
Attorney for United States

28