Opinion ID: 4569202
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Any Error Was Harmless

Text: Even if the district court did err in applying the two-level undue-influence enhancement (and it did not), any error would be harmless, and therefore “must be disregarded.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). “Errors that do not affect the ultimate Guidelines range or sentence imposed are harmless and do not require resentencing.” See, e.g., United States v. Faulkner, 926 F.3d 266, No. 19-4160 United States v. Jeremy Cruz Page 9 275 (6th Cir. 2019); United States v. Whyte, 795 F. App’x 353, 366 (6th Cir. 2019) (holding that two-point enhancement was harmless because it did “not affect Whyte’s total offense level under the sentencing guidelines”). The undue-influence enhancement did not affect Cruz’s ultimate Guidelines range. Here, Cruz’s final adjusted offense level was calculated according to the applicable grouping rules under the Guidelines. See USSG §§ 3D1.2(d), 3D1.4(a). Cruz’s three offenses were first divided into two groups: Group One included only Count 1 because it involved a separate harm; and Group Two included Counts 2 and 3 because the offense level is determined largely on the basis of the total amount of harm. See USSG § 3D1.2(d). Three enhancements were applied to Count 1: a two-level enhancement for “unduly influencing a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct,” USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B); a two-level enhancement for using a computer to entice a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor, USSG § 2G1.3(b)(3); and a two-level enhancement for committing a sex act with a minor, USSG § 2G1.3(b)(4)(A). As for the offenses in Group Two, four enhancements were applied—none of which Cruz challenges on appeal. The resulting adjusted offense level subtotals for Group One and Group Two were calculated according to the following tables: Group One (Count 1): Transporting a Minor with the Guideline Intent to Engage in Sexual Activity Base offense level 28 § 2G1.3(a)(3) Undue influence +2 § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) Use of a computer to entice +2 § 2G1.3(b)(3) Commission of a sex act +2 § 2G1.3(b)(4)(A) Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal) 34 Group Two (Counts 2 and 3): Receiving and Guideline Transporting Child Pornography Base offense level 22 § 2G2.2(a)(2) Images of a prepubescent minor +2 § 2G2.2(b)(2) Images of sexual abuse or exploitation of an infant or toddler +2 § 2G2.2(b)(4)(B) Use of a computer or interactive computer service +2 § 2G2.2(b)(6) At least 600 images +2 § 2G2.2(b)(7) Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal) 35 No. 19-4160 United States v. Jeremy Cruz Page 10 The group with the highest offense level subtotal (Group Two) was then used to calculate Cruz’s combined adjusted offense level. See USSG § 3D1.4(a). To that end, the Guidelines provided for two offense levels added to Group Two. Id. As a result, Cruz’s combined adjusted offense level was 37. After a three-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, Cruz’s final adjusted offense level was 34. When combined with Cruz’s Criminal History Category of I, the Guidelines yielded an advisory sentencing range of 151 to 188 months of imprisonment. The salient fact here is that the undue-influence enhancement only applied to Group One, which was not the operative group used to calculate Cruz’s combined adjusted offense level. Even if the district court had not imposed the enhancement, the final adjusted offense level would still be 34—the same offense level the district court used to sentence Cruz. As a result, the advisory Guidelines range would be 151 to 188 months of imprisonment, which is precisely the range the district court relied upon in sentencing Cruz. Therefore, any error by the district court as to the enhancement would have had no effect on the ultimate sentence and thus would be harmless. Faulkner, 926 F.3d at 275.3