United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10947

Summary Calendar

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10947 Document: 00516505939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2022
No. 21-10947

2

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 

Case: 21-10947 Document: 00516505939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2022
No. 21-10947

3

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.

Case: 21-10947 Document: 00516505939 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/12/2022