Grooming as Relevant Conduct: Broad Application of U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1), Sexual-Contact Enhancements, and Expansive Sex-Offender Supervision Conditions

1. Introduction

In United States v. Robles (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2026) (per curiam) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a 360-month sentence and multiple supervised-release conditions imposed after Carlos Robles pleaded guilty to interstate travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).

The appeal centered on three sentencing/supervision issues:

  • Whether the district court properly applied the U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1) cross-reference to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 (production guideline) based on relevant conduct involving sexually explicit self-produced videos sent by the minor.
  • Whether the court properly applied the U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) enhancement for “commission of a sexual act or sexual contact” even though the sexual contact was not itself visually depicted.
  • Whether three supervised-release conditions (SORNA compliance direction language, sex-offender treatment including plethysmograph testing, and a pornography/sexually-explicit depiction ban) were unlawfully imposed or overly intrusive.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed across the board.

  • Cross-reference affirmed: The court held that the minor’s sexually explicit videos and images—exchanged during online communications—could be treated as relevant conduct because they evidenced grooming “in preparation for” the interstate-travel offense, supporting application of § 2G1.3(c)(1) → § 2G2.1.
  • Sexual-contact enhancement affirmed: The court held that § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) applies when sexual contact is relevant conduct occurring “during” the offense of conviction; visual depiction is not required for the enhancement.
  • Supervised-release conditions affirmed: (i) the SORNA condition’s “as directed by” language did not delegate the court’s power; (ii) plethysmograph-capable treatment is foreclosed by circuit precedent; and (iii) the sexually-explicit-depiction prohibition (as narrowed by the district court to depictions of “sexually explicit conduct” under 18 U.S.C. § 2256) was upheld as reasonably related and not more restrictive than necessary on this record.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1) Standards of review and guideline application framework

  • United States v. Peterson (quoting United States v. Nguyen): supplies the appellate standard—de novo review of guideline interpretation/application and clear-error review of factfinding—used to assess the cross-reference and enhancement rulings.

2) “Grooming” as conduct “in preparation for” the offense

  • United States v. Howard (quoting United States v. Chambers): provides the court’s conceptual hook for “grooming behavior,” described as deliberate exposure of a child to sexual material to form an emotional connection and reduce inhibitions in preparation for sexual activity. Robles uses this conception to treat the pre-travel exchange of explicit material as preparatory conduct.
  • United States v. Schneider: cited by analogy to show that prior sexual abuse or relationship-cultivation can be relevant conduct to a travel-with-intent offense when it enabled or prepared for the charged travel offense.

3) Enhancements under § 2G2.1 and the breadth of “offense” via relevant conduct

  • United States v. King: central to the court’s treatment of § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A). King is cited for the proposition that the enhancement applies whenever sexual acts/contact qualify as relevant conduct to the offense of conviction—i.e., occurred “during” or “in preparation for” the offense—without requiring that the sexual contact be visually depicted.

4) Supervised release: standards and specific conditions

  • United States v. Morin (quoting United States v. Salazar): supplies abuse-of-discretion review for preserved challenges to supervised-release conditions.
  • United States v. Alexander: persuasive (though unpublished) support that the standard SORNA condition’s “as directed by” language does not delegate sentencing authority; it merely identifies who may provide compliance instructions.
  • United States v. Dailey and United States v. Thomas: out-of-circuit / other-circuit persuasive support for similar reasoning about SORNA instruction language not being an unconstitutional delegation.
  • Ballard v. Burton and United States v. Illies: cited for the Fifth Circuit’s approach to unpublished opinions—nonprecedential but potentially persuasive—supporting the panel’s reliance on United States v. Alexander.
  • United States v. Ellis and United States v. Ybaben: foreclose challenges to sex-offender treatment conditions that may include plethysmograph testing.
  • United States v. Abbate (quoting Ellis): supports broad restrictions on access to sexually stimulating material when the offense is sexual in nature.
  • United States v. Miller, United States v. Brigham, and United States v. Sealed Juvenile: collectively support pornography/sexually-explicit-material restrictions where the record shows a nexus (including “intertwined” adult and minor interest or inferable influence on behavior) and where such restrictions advance rehabilitation and public protection.
  • United States v. Salazar: distinguished. Salazar required record support and adequate reasons for pornography restrictions; Robles finds that support present due to the role sexually explicit exchanges played and the defendant’s recidivist/serious conduct profile.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) The cross-reference: “offense” includes relevant conduct; grooming can be “preparation”

The operative guideline move was from § 2G1.3 (enticement/travel-related sexual offenses involving minors) to § 2G2.1 (production) via § 2G1.3(c)(1), which applies if “the offense involved” causing/inducing/etc. a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct “for the purpose of producing a visual depiction.”

Robles’s principal resistance was temporal and categorical: the indictment concerned a single trip (Jan. 31, 2020) and there was no evidence Robles filmed the minor during the trip; therefore, he argued, the offense of conviction did not “involve” production.

The panel accepted the government’s concession that filming did not occur during the trip, but held the cross-reference properly rested on relevant conduct. Two interpretive steps did the work:

  1. The Guidelines define “offense” to include “the offense of conviction and all relevant conduct under § 1B1.3,” allowing cross-reference triggers to be satisfied by qualifying uncharged conduct.
  2. “Relevant conduct” includes acts that occurred “in preparation for” the offense of conviction. Invoking grooming doctrine (from United States v. Howard), the panel treated the minors’ explicit self-produced videos as part of a preparatory “pattern of grooming” that reduced inhibitions and supported the inference that Robles traveled expecting sexual contact.

Notably, the court rejected Robles’s attempt to require proof that the participants discussed the specific trip during the making of the depictions. The panel’s approach instead treats preparatory relevance as functional: whether the conduct facilitated, conditioned, or set the stage for the charged travel-with-intent offense.

2) The § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) enhancement: no depiction requirement; “during the offense” suffices

After the cross-reference placed Robles under § 2G2.1, the PSR applied § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) because the offense involved “the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact,” based on oral sex during the Texas visits.

Robles argued that because the sexual contact was not depicted, it should not enhance the guideline outcome driven by visual depiction conduct. The panel rejected that as a misunderstanding of the relevant-conduct regime: the enhancement’s reference to “offense” likewise includes relevant conduct. Citing United States v. King, the panel reasoned that once sexual contact is relevant conduct that occurred “during the commission of the offense of conviction,” it can trigger the enhancement irrespective of whether it was filmed.

The factual predicate was uncontested: Robles conceded sexual contact occurred during the January 2020 trip. That concession effectively resolved the enhancement question under the panel’s legal rule.

3) Supervised-release conditions: § 3583(d) reasonableness, no improper delegation, and record nexus

The court applied the statutory framework of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), requiring that conditions be reasonably related to specified § 3553(a) factors, involve no greater deprivation than reasonably necessary, and be consistent with Sentencing Commission policy statements.

(i) SORNA “as directed by” language

Robles attacked the condition requiring him to comply with SORNA “as directed by” probation, BOP, or state registration agencies, arguing it was alterable by nonjudicial actors. The panel, relying on United States v. Alexander as persuasive authority (and buttressing with United States v. Dailey and United States v. Thomas), characterized the language as administrative: it does not change the substantive duty to register; it only identifies who may provide instructions for compliance in particular jurisdictions or custodial settings.

(ii) Treatment that may include plethysmograph testing

The panel held the challenge foreclosed by United States v. Ellis (and acknowledged consistent application in United States v. Ybaben).

(iii) Prohibition on “visual depictions” of “sexually explicit conduct” (including adults)

The district court narrowed the condition to prohibit viewing or possessing any “visual depiction” of “sexually explicit conduct,” using 18 U.S.C. § 2256 definitions. Robles argued that banning otherwise legal adult depictions lacked evidence of contribution to his offense and lacked a showing that his interest in minors was intertwined with adult material.

The panel distinguished United States v. Salazar—where the record did not show porn contributed to the offense and reasons were insufficient—by pointing to record facts here: the minor said communications “almost always” resulted in her sending masturbation videos; those videos were treated as grooming/preparation for the travel offense; and the case involved multiple minor victims and recidivism.

On the “intertwined” theory, the panel relied on the broader nexus logic of United States v. Abbate, United States v. Miller, and related cases: even absent mixed adult/minor depictions in a defendant’s files, a court may infer risk where the record shows sexual interests and patterns (here, interest in teenage girls “pretending to be younger children”) suggesting adult sexual content could fuel fantasy pathways that elevate risk and undermine rehabilitation—an inference the panel expressly endorsed by invoking the PSR addendum’s “fantasy sex” rationale.

C. Impact

Although the opinion is unpublished and “not designated for publication” under Fifth Circuit rules, it is still informative in three practical ways:

  • Sentencing litigation over § 2G1.3(c)(1) will increasingly turn on “preparation” narratives. Robles shows the Fifth Circuit’s willingness to treat sexually explicit exchanges as grooming that prepares for travel-with-intent offenses, satisfying the cross-reference through relevant conduct even when no production occurs during the travel itself.
  • Once the cross-reference applies, enhancements can stack based on different slices of relevant conduct. Robles rejects the notion that § 2G2.1 becomes a single-issue “depiction-only” universe; rather, the full relevant-conduct canvas remains available for enhancements like § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A).
  • Adult-content restrictions remain viable when the record supports a behavioral nexus. By distinguishing United States v. Salazar and leaning on United States v. Abbate and United States v. Sealed Juvenile, Robles underscores that the key battle is record development: courts are more likely to uphold broad restrictions when pornography/sexually explicit exchanges are tied to grooming, escalation, fantasy reinforcement, or demonstrated patterns suggesting risk to minors.

A limiting note: because Robles is unpublished, its direct precedential force is constrained; its greater significance is as a blueprint for how Fifth Circuit panels may analyze similar records under existing published authority (e.g., United States v. King, United States v. Abbate, and United States v. Salazar).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Cross-reference (Guidelines): A rule that switches the applicable guideline to a different one if certain facts are present. Here, § 2G1.3(c)(1) can switch a travel/enticement case into the production guideline (§ 2G2.1) if the offense “involved” inducing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct to create images/videos.
  • Relevant conduct (§ 1B1.3): Conduct the court may consider at sentencing beyond the specific charged act—such as acts “in preparation for” the offense or occurring “during” it.
  • Grooming: Preparatory behavior designed to reduce a child’s resistance and normalize sexual activity (e.g., exchanging sexual content, building dependence, escalating sexual talk), making later physical abuse more likely.
  • “Offense involved”: Guideline phrase interpreted broadly here to include the charged offense plus relevant conduct, which allows uncharged preparatory acts to trigger guideline switches and enhancements.
  • SORNA condition “as directed by”: The court treated this as allowing officials to give instructions for compliance (where/when/how to register) rather than giving them power to change the legal duty to register.
  • Plethysmograph testing: A controversial physiological test sometimes used in sex-offender treatment; Fifth Circuit precedent (United States v. Ellis) prevents relitigation of its permissibility in this context.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Robles affirms a rigorous sentencing approach in § 2423(b) travel-with-intent cases: sexually explicit exchanges with a minor may be treated as grooming “in preparation for” the travel offense, thereby supporting the broad § 2G1.3(c)(1) cross-reference to § 2G2.1; sexual-contact enhancements may apply based on relevant conduct occurring during the travel even without visual depiction; and supervised-release conditions—including SORNA instruction language, plethysmograph-capable treatment, and restrictions on sexually explicit depictions—will be upheld when grounded in established circuit precedent and a record demonstrating risk, rehabilitation needs, and a nexus between sexual material and offending dynamics.