United States v. Musgraves ( 2022 )

Case: 21-10947 Document: 00516505939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 12, 2022
No. 21-10947
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Justin David Musgraves,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:21-CR-10-1
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Justin David Musgraves appeals the sentence imposed following his
conviction for possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent
minor. He challenges the imposition of supervised release conditions
limiting his contact with minors, preventing him from possessing sexually
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10947 Document: 00516505939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2022
No. 21-10947
stimulating materials or patronizing places where such materials are
available, and prohibiting him from using any computer that is not authorized
by the probation officer. Musgraves also argues that the district court erred
in calculating the amount of mandatory restitution he owed. Specifically, he
contends that the district court failed to comply with Paroline v. United States,
572 U.S. 434 (2014), because it made no effort to determine the damages that
he proximately caused the victims.
Because Musgraves did not object on these grounds in the district
court, we review for plain error only. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
135 (2009); United States v. Leal, 933 F.3d 426, 431 (5th Cir. 2019). To
demonstrate plain error, Musgraves must show a forfeited error that is clear
or obvious and that affected his substantial rights. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If
he makes this showing, we have discretion to remedy the error if it “seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
Although Musgraves argues that the challenged special conditions are
overly broad, we have applied a commonsense approach to interpreting
similar conditions. See United States v. Duke, 788 F.3d 392, 398 (5th Cir.
2015); United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 225–27 (5th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, Musgraves fails to demonstrate clear or obvious error. See
Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
As for the challenge to the restitution amounts, in Paroline, 572 U.S.
at 459, the Supreme Court recognized the difficulty in determining the
damages proximately caused by a defendant who is one of many that
possessed images of a victim of a child pornography offense. However, it
directed the district court to “assess as best it can from available evidence the
significance of the individual defendant’s conduct in light of the broader
causal process that produced the victim’s losses.” Id. Here, the victims
2
Case: 21-10947 Document: 00516505939 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/12/2022
No. 21-10947
submitted extensive packets that detailed their substantial losses. Per the
packets, the victims’ losses were caused in part by individuals like Musgraves
who possessed images of the victims. The district court ordered Musgraves
to pay restitution in the amounts the victims requested, which was only a
small percentage of each of their demonstrated total losses. There is no
indication that any of the victims received duplicative recovery. Even
assuming that the district court did not engage in a sufficient proximate cause
analysis under Paroline, Musgraves fails to show that there is a reasonable
probability that such error resulted in his accountability for damages he did
not cause or that the district court would have imposed a lower restitution
amount but for any error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Austin,
479 F.3d 363, 373 (5th Cir. 2007). And Musgraves fails to show that any error
affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See
Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Leal, 933 F.3d at 433.
AFFIRMED.
3