United States v. Paul Tegeler, 650 F. App'x 903

Tegeler pleaded guilty to coercion and enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422(a)) after responding to and posting Craigslist ads seeking underage females for sex and "daddy-daughter" or sex-slave relationships.
An undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old communicated with Tegeler; Tegeler sent a one-way bus ticket and went to the pickup location, where he was arrested. He denied knowing the purported victim was 13.
Forensic review showed Tegeler communicated sexually with multiple minors and had a sexualized history of Craigslist postings; one contact was a 17-year-old who sent explicit images but never met Tegeler in person.
The PSR applied USSG § 2G1.3 as the base guideline and cross-referenced § 2G2.1 because of the 17-year-old’s explicit images, producing an offense level of 31 and a guidelines range of 108–135 months.
Tegeler objected, arguing the cross-reference was improper because the 17-year-old was not the victim of the charged offense; the district court applied the cross-reference but expressly stated it would impose an 84-month sentence based on § 3553(a) factors regardless of the guideline computation.
On appeal Tegeler argued procedural error in applying the cross-reference and that any error was not harmless; the court affirmed, holding any error was harmless because the record shows the court would have imposed the same sentence irrespective of the guidelines calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in applying the § 2G2.1 cross‑reference to § 2G1.3 based on Tegeler’s contacts with a 17‑year‑old	Tegeler: cross‑reference improper because the 17‑year‑old was not the victim of the convicted offense and the government offered no proof he caused her to send images in connection with the charged conduct	Government: cross‑reference appropriate because Tegeler’s pattern of conduct and the 17‑year‑old’s explicit images made production of images foreseeable, supporting application of § 2G2.1	Court: did not decide definitively whether error occurred but treated any error as harmless because the court would have imposed the same 84‑month sentence under § 3553(a) regardless
Whether any guidelines miscalculation was harmless	Tegeler: procedural error was not harmless and warrants resentencing	Government: any procedural error is harmless because district court announced it would impose the same sentence regardless of the guideline ruling	Court: error, if any, was harmless — record shows the court intended the same sentence irrespective of guideline computation

Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (review requires ensuring no significant procedural sentencing error)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing review framework and reasonableness standard)
Waller v. United States, 689 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (non‑harmless error in guideline calculation requires remand absent harmlessness showing)
Woods v. United States, 670 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2012) (government must show procedural error did not substantially influence sentencing outcome)
Sanchez‑Martinez v. United States, 633 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 2011) (harmlessness where district court would have imposed same sentence on § 3553(a) grounds)
Henson v. United States, 550 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2008) (government may show harmlessness by demonstrating the court would have imposed same term absent error)
Jackson v. United States, 594 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2010) (treating preserved guideline error as harmless when judge made clear the sentence was independent of the erroneous calculation)