United States v. Jeremy Cruz, 976 F.3d 656

Cruz (≈37–39) maintained a ~2‑year sexually explicit online relationship with M.C., who initially misrepresented her age and was actually 12 when contact began and 14 when taken from California to Ohio.
Cruz drove from Ohio to California, picked M.C. up, and transported her across state lines intending to engage in sexual activity; M.C. had sex with Cruz multiple times and performed a sexual act in the car.
Law enforcement located Cruz in Ohio; agents found M.C. hiding at the residence and discovered Cruz’s phone contained 1,159 child‑pornography images, including explicit images of M.C.
Cruz pleaded guilty to three federal counts: transporting a minor with intent to engage in sexual activity (Count 1), receiving child pornography (Count 2), and transporting child pornography (Count 3).
The PSR recommended a two‑level enhancement under USSG §2G1.3(b)(2)(B) for unduly influencing a minor (based on a ≥10‑year age gap). The district court applied the enhancement, finding the 25‑year age gap triggered a rebuttable presumption of undue influence that Cruz failed to rebut.
Sentencing grouping produced a combined offense level of 34 and a Guidelines range of 151–188 months; the court imposed 188 months. On appeal, Cruz challenged only the two‑level undue‑influence enhancement.

Issue	Cruz’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in applying the 2‑level undue‑influence enhancement under USSG §2G1.3(b)(2)(B)	M.C. lied about her age; Cruz claims he reasonably believed she was 17–19 and thus rebutted the presumption of undue influence	The 25‑year age gap triggers a rebuttable presumption of undue influence; Cruz failed to produce evidence to rebut it and facts (online grooming, cross‑country transport, dependency) support the enhancement	Affirmed: presumption applied; district court reasonably rejected Cruz’s rebuttal and properly applied the enhancement
If error, whether it was harmless	N/A (contends error matters)	Any error was harmless because the enhancement applied only to Group One and did not change the combined offense level or Guidelines range used to sentence Cruz	Affirmed: even if erroneous, the enhancement did not affect final offense level or sentence and is harmless

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (procedural/substantive reasonableness standard for sentences)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (commentary to Sentencing Guidelines is authoritative)
United States v. Lay, 583 F.3d 436 (presumption of undue influence and burden to rebut)
United States v. Davis, 924 F.3d 899 (distinguished on facts where age‑gap discussion was insufficient)
United States v. Reid, 751 F.3d 763 (undue‑influence enhancement applies to manipulation/preying on vulnerable minors)
United States v. Willoughby, 742 F.3d 229 (upholding undue‑influence enhancement where defendant induced dependence of minor)
United States v. Faulkner, 926 F.3d 266 (harmless‑error rule for Guidelines enhancements)