Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02911/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02911-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul M. Tegeler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2911

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Paul M. Tegeler

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________

 Submitted: April 11, 2016

 Filed: May 31, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,1

 District

Judge.

____________

PER CURIAM.

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

Appellate Case: 15-2911 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Entry ID: 4404671 
Paul Tegeler pleaded guilty to coercion and enticement in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2422(a). The district court2

 sentenced him below the advisory sentencing

guidelines range to 84 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release. 

Tegeler appeals, arguing that the district court erred in its application of the guidelines

and that this error was not harmless. We affirm.

The Arapahoe County, Colorado sheriff’s office began investigating Tegeler

after identifying him as the author of a Craigslist posting by a male looking for a sex

slave. As part of the investigation, an undercover officer pretending to be a 13-yearold female responding to the Craigslist ad exchanged emails with Tegeler for several

days. Tegeler described sexually explicit conduct in these emails and invited the

“child” to meet him for sex. To facilitate this meeting, Tegeler sent her a one-way bus

ticket departing from Denver, Colorado and arriving in Lexington, Nebraska. Leading

up to their meeting, Tegeler requested—but did not receive—pictures of her breasts. 

The Nebraska State Patrol took Tegeler into custody after he went to the Lexington

bus stop at the time scheduled for the child’s arrival. Tegeler admitted that he created

the Craigslist ad, used the email addresses through which the child had received

communications from him, and went to the bus stop to pick her up. He denied

knowing that she was 13 years old. 

Subsequent to Tegeler’s arrest, the Nebraska State Patrol executed a search

warrant at Tegeler’s home. Forensic examination of Tegeler’s email accounts and

computer determined that he had online conversations with numerous young girls and

that he had posted 146 ads on Craigslist seeking a female to relocate for the purpose

of engaging in daddy-daughter role play or a sex-slave relationship. One of the

juveniles with whom Tegeler communicated was 17 years old at the time of her

contact with him. In an interview with law enforcement subsequent to Tegeler’s arrest

2

The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2911 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Entry ID: 4404671 
for the instant offense, she stated that she initiated contact with Tegeler as a result of

one of his Craigslist ads and that she and Tegeler had planned for him to pick her up

from Kansas to take her to live with him in Nebraska. Her conversations with Tegeler

were sexual in nature, and she recalled sending explicit pictures of herself to him. She

told law enforcement that she eventually stopped responding to Tegeler’s emails and

that she had never met Tegeler in person.

Tegeler was indicted and charged with one count of coercion and enticement,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a). He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. A

revised presentence investigation report (“PSR”) found that USSG § 2G1.3 provided

the most analogous sentencing guideline for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a). 

However, USSG § 2G1.3(c)(1) provides: 

If the offense involved causing, transporting, permitting, or offering or

seeking by notice or advertisement, a minor to engage in sexually

explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such

conduct, apply § 2G2.1 . . . if the resulting offense level is greater than

that determined [under § 2G1.3].

USSG § 2G1.3(c)(1). Pursuant to this provision, the PSR urged that the crossreference to § 2G2.1 applied because Tegeler had sexual conversations with a 17-yearold female that resulted in her sending him pictures depicting sexually explicit

conduct. This cross-reference resulted in a base offense level of 32. The PSR then

applied a two-level enhancement because the offense involved the use of a computer,

see USSG § 2G2.1(b)(6)(B)(i), as well as a three-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility, see USSG § 3E1.1. The PSR thus recommended a total offense level

of 31, resulting in an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 108 to 135 months’

imprisonment.

Tegeler objected to the PSR’s application of the cross-reference to § 2G2.1. He

argued that the Government had offered no evidence that he caused the 17-year-old

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-2911 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Entry ID: 4404671 
Kansas girl to send sexually explicit visual depictions to him, so as to allow the court

to find that his conduct with the 13-year-old involved in the offense of conviction

likewise would have resulted in sexually explicit visual depictions. Accordingly, he

contended that, applying § 2G1.3, his total offense level should be 23, resulting in a

guidelines range of 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment.

At Tegeler’s sentencing hearing, the district court observed that Tegeler’s

conduct did not fit neatly into either § 2G2.1 or § 2G1.3 because of the court’s

concern about considering Tegeler’s conduct with the 17-year-old, who was not the

victim in the offense of conviction, to draw conclusions about his intended conduct

with the 13-year-old. The court then went on to state that it likely would vary upward

or downward based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to arrive at a sentence that

would be the same regardless of whether Tegeler’s conduct fit within the crossreference. The court then found that Tegeler’s Craigslist postings revealed a definite

pattern of improper sexual conduct with underage girls for the purposes of enticing

them to visit him for sex and the production of visual depictions. In light of this

pattern, Tegeler’s exchange with the 17-year-old and the fact that a digital camera and

other items were found during the search of his home rendered “perfectly foreseeable”

that Tegeler likewise sought to transport the 13-year-old female for the purpose of

producing sexually explicit visual depictions. The court thus found that the crossreference to § 2G2.1 applied. After further noting its consideration of all of the

§ 3553(a) factors, the district court sentenced Tegeler to 84 months’ imprisonment,

followed by 10 years’ supervised release. 

On appeal, Tegeler contends that the district court procedurally erred by finding

that the guidelines cross-reference applied because, in doing so, it punished him for

an offense that never occurred and improperly applied a foreseeability standard that

Tegeler interpreted to refer to jointly undertaken criminal activity under USSG

§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). This misapplication of the guidelines, he argues, was not harmless.

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-2911 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Entry ID: 4404671 
When reviewing a defendant’s sentence, we “must first ensure that the district

court committed no significant procedural error.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d

455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007)). “A failure to properly calculate the advisory Guidelines range is a significant

procedural error, and a non-harmless error in calculating the [G]uidelines range

requires a remand for resentencing.” United States v. Waller, 689 F.3d 947, 957-58

(8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Woods,

670 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2012)). “However, a district court’s Guidelines

computation error is harmless if the government can show the procedural error did not

substantially influence the outcome of the sentencing proceeding.” Id. at 958 (quoting

Woods, 670 F.3d at 886).3

Here, the Government argues that any error by the district court in applying the

cross-reference was harmless because the record clearly indicates that the district court

would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the applicability of the crossreference. After reviewing the sentencing-hearing transcript, we agree. This is so

“because the record is clear that the district court intended to impose the same

sentence of . . . imprisonment based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)” regardless of whether

3

We note that the Supreme Court recently held that a defendant seeking

appellate review of an unpreserved guidelines error need not make a further showing

of prejudice beyond the fact that the erroneous guidelines range “set the wrong

framework for the sentencing proceedings.” United States v. Molina-Martinez, 577

U.S. ---, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016). This does not affect our long line of precedent 

holding that the Government may meet its burden of showing that a preserved

guidelines computation error is harmless by showing that the court “would have

arrived at the same term of imprisonment absent the procedural error.” United States

v. Henson, 550 F.3d 739, 742 (8th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. SanchezMartinez, 633 F.3d 658, 660-61 (8th Cir. 2011); Woods, 670 F.3d at 887. Indeed,

even Molina-Martinez recognizes that “despite application of an erroneous Guidelines

range, a reasonable probability of prejudice does not exist” when “[t]he record in a

case . . . show[s] . . . that the district court thought the sentence it chose was

appropriate irrespective of the Guidelines range.” 577 U.S. ---, 136 S.Ct. at 1346.

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-2911 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Entry ID: 4404671 
the cross-reference applied. See Sanchez-Martinez, 633 F.3d at 660-61; see also

Molina-Martinez, 577 U.S. ---, 136 S.Ct. at 1346. Although the court ultimately

applied the guidelines cross-reference to determine the advisory guidelines range, the

court stated repeatedly on the record that it would vary upward or downward to reach

an 84-month sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors notwithstanding the applicability

of the cross-reference. As the district court reiterated in pronouncing Tegeler’s

sentence:

I have considered your prior history, your service, your health

issues, . . . but I’ve also considered that society needs protection from

this type of predatory behavior. And, based on the nature of this offense,

there will be a significant punishment reflecting respect for the law. I am

varying somewhat from the guidelines, if you will, but, as I noted earlier,

this sentence is based on § 3553 factors and would be the sentence

regardless of guidelines and regardless of how I ruled on the § 2G1.3

objection, quite frankly, either way.

When the district court makes “‘a clear record that the judge intended to impose

the same sentence,’ and where the court ‘tak[es] into account the potential impact of

the specific error alleged,’ it is appropriate to treat the alleged error as harmless.” 

United States v. Jackson, 594 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original)

(internal citation omitted) (quoting Henson, 550 F.3d at 741-42); see also United

States v. Ortiz, 636 F.3d 389, 395 (8th Cir. 2011) (“Under the circumstances of this

case, there is no doubt the district court would have imposed the same sentence, and

for the same reasons, regardless of any procedural error it may have made . . . .”). We

have such a clear record here. We thus conclude that, even if the district court

improperly applied the cross-reference to determine Tegeler’s base offense level (a

question we do not decide today), any such error was harmless. Accordingly, we

affirm.

______________________________

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-2911 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Entry ID: 4404671