Clarifying “Causing” Under U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(c)(1): Temporal Nexus Requirement in Child Exploitation Sentencing

Introduction

In United States v. Luis Ramirez Avila (4th Cir. 2025), the Fourth Circuit confronted the proper application of the “cross-reference” enhancement in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for child exploitation offenses. At issue was U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(c)(1), which instructs a district court to calculate a defendant’s offense level under a higher-level guideline if the defendant’s conduct “involved causing … a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction.” Luis Avila pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, but he objected when the district court applied the cross-reference enhancement on the ground that the court’s factual findings did not legally support a finding that he “caused” any minor to produce the illicit material. The Fourth Circuit agreed, vacating his enhanced sentence and remanding for resentencing.

Summary of the Judgment

The court held that:

The term “causing” in §2G2.2(c)(1) requires proof that the defendant’s actions prompted a minor to engage in sexual conduct after and in response to the defendant’s request.
Mere offerings of money for videos depicting sexual conduct do not alone establish that the defendant “caused” their production.
The district court’s explanation—that Avila “offered money for specific conduct”—fell short of a legal finding that any minor produced videos in direct response to his requests.
Because the district court made no legally sufficient finding of causation, the sentence based on §2G2.2(c)(1) was procedurally erroneous. The court vacated that sentence and remanded for resentencing under the correct guideline provision.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Fourth Circuit relied on several authorities in interpreting §2G2.2(c)(1):

Johnson v. Zimmer, 686 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2012) – directs courts to adopt the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” of undefined guideline terms.
United States v. Gross, 90 F.4th 715 (4th Cir. 2024) – addresses the presumption that a district court understands and applies the correct legal standard, but limits that presumption when the court’s rationale suggests reliance on a broader or different rule.
United States v. Mitchell, 120 F.4th 1233 (4th Cir. 2024) – confirms that guideline interpretation is a legal question reviewed de novo.
United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2019) – holds that appellate courts cannot search the record to supply unarticulated factual findings for a district court.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

Defining “causing” according to ordinary meaning: The court looked to a general-use dictionary definition holding that to “cause” something is to “make (something, typically something bad) happen” and that one cannot cause an event that preceded one’s own action.
Assessing the district court’s factual findings: The sentencing judge found only that Avila “offered money for specific conduct.” But under the panel’s reading, that fact does not necessarily establish that the minor produced or transmitted videos in response to Avila’s requests.
Applying procedural error principles: Because the court never made the necessary temporal-causation finding, the enhancement lacked a legally sufficient foundation. The Fourth Circuit invoked de novo review of the guideline interpretation and vacated the sentence without speculating whether the record might have supported a proper finding.

Impact

The Avila decision clarifies the following points for future child exploitation cases:

Sentencing courts must explicitly find that a defendant’s actions prompted a minor to produce sexually explicit material after the defendant’s request.
Offering or paying money without evidence of prompt, responsive production does not satisfy the “causing” element of §2G2.2(c)(1).
Appellate courts will not supply missing factual findings; district courts must articulate the basis for any cross-reference enhancement clearly.

This ruling will guide both defense practitioners and prosecutors in framing objections and evidence proffers at sentencing hearings, emphasizing the need to prove a direct causal nexus where higher-level guidelines hinge on “causing” conduct.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Cross-reference” (U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(c)(1)): A mechanism in sentencing guidelines directing the court to use a different (often higher) sentencing rule if specific conduct is present and that rule yields a higher offense level.

Temporal Causation Requirement: For a defendant to “cause” a minor to produce illicit images, the production must occur after and because of the defendant’s request—not merely coincide with prior or independent conduct by the minor.

Procedural Error in Sentencing: An error is procedural when the district court fails to follow the correct legal framework or make necessary factual findings, requiring vacation and remand even if the sentence may ultimately be substantively reasonable.

Conclusion

United States v. Avila establishes that “causing” under U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(c)(1) demands proof of a causal link between a defendant’s request and a minor’s subsequent production of explicit content. The decision underscores the duty of sentencing courts to articulate clear findings on each element that triggers a guideline enhancement. In the broader legal context, Avila refines the boundary between preparatory misconduct (such as offering money) and finished culpable conduct (causing production), thereby promoting greater precision and fairness in child exploitation sentencing.