# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 hi m from possessing sexua lly

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 12, 2022

Lyle W. Ca yce Clerk Case: 21-10947 Document: 00516505939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2022No. 21

- 10947

2 stimulating materials or patronizing places where such material s 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, h e 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 proximate ly 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 condition s 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, 22 5

– 27 (5th Cir. 2013)

. Accordingly, Musgraves fails to dem onstrate clear or obvious error. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135

. As for the challenge to the restitution amounts , i n Paroline , 572 U.S. at 459, the Supreme Court recognized the difficulty in determining the damages proximately caused by a defendant who is o ne 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 pr ocess that produced the victim’s losses.” Id. Here, the victims Case: 21-10947 Document: 00516505939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2022No. 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 victim s. T he 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. T here 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 affect ed 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