Court Opinion

ID: 9554452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 00:00:32.2942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:00.888174
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10208        Document: 00516850853             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                            FILED
                                     ____________
                                                                                 August 8, 2023
                                      No. 22-10208                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                     Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Zack Monroe Turman,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:20-CR-67-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Zack Monroe Turman pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
   agreement, to distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   § 2252A(a)(2) & (b)(1). In his plea agreement, Turman waived his right to
   challenge his conviction and sentence on direct appeal or in any collateral
   proceedings, but he reserved the right to, among other things, challenge on
   appeal a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum punishment. Turman

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10208      Document: 00516850853           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                     No. 22-10208

   was sentenced to 240 months in prison and 15 years of supervised release,
   and was ordered to pay $38,000 in restitution. On appeal, he challenges the
   district court’s restitution order as exceeding the statutory maximum. On
   the merits, Turman argues that the district court plainly erred by ordering
   restitution without first determining his relative role in causing the victims’
   claimed losses. The Government asserts that Turman’s challenge to the
   restitution order is barred by his appeal waiver, and that the record precludes
   a finding of plain error. We agree with the Government that Turman’s
   challenge is barred by his appeal waiver, and, even if it were not, that there
   was no plain error.

                                          I.
          By statute, restitution is mandatory in child pornography cases. See
   18 U.S.C. § 2259. In Paroline v. United States, the Supreme Court held that
   restitution is proper under § 2259 “only to the extent the defendant’s offense
   proximately caused a victim’s losses.” 572 U.S. 434, 448 (2014). Paroline
   was then codified at § 2259(b)(2), which provides, in part, that the district
   court “shall order restitution in an amount that reflects the defendant’s
   relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s losses, but which
   is no less than $3,000.” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)(B).
          Generally, a challenge to an unauthorized restitution amount is not
   barred by an appeal waiver because such an award exceeds the statutory
   maximum sentence. See United States v. Winchel, 896 F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir.
   2018); United States v. Leal, 933 F.3d 426, 431 (5th Cir. 2019). In United
   States v. Alfred, however, we held that an appeal waiver barred a “Paroline-
   based” challenge to a restitution order because the district court had
   performed the Paroline analysis and the appeal simply challenged the
   outcome of that analysis. 60 F.4th 979, 982 (5th Cir. 2023). “Because it
   [was] clear that the district court considered the Paroline factors at

                                          2
Case: 22-10208      Document: 00516850853          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 22-10208

   sentencing and ordered restitution as authorized by § 2259, the statutory-
   maximum exception [did] not apply.” Id. In Winchel and Leal, by contrast,
   “we declined to enforce the appeal waivers because the district courts failed
   to conduct the requisite analysis altogether.” Id.
          In this case, the presentence report (PSR) identified six victims of
   Turman’s offense, each of whom requested restitution, and the PSR
   recommended that the district court award the requested amounts, for a total
   restitution amount of $38,000. Turman did not object to the PSR or to the
   district court’s restitution order. After this case was appealed the district
   court granted the Government’s unopposed motion to supplement the
   record under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) “to include evidence
   related to the requests for restitution filed by the defendant’s victims.” The
   district court further stated unequivocally that it had relied on that
   supplemental information and considered the Paroline factors when ordering
   restitution. Given the unopposed supplemental evidence and the district
   court’s order, Turman’s waiver bars the instant appeal because the district
   court considered the Paroline factors, and the appeal simply challenges the
   factual outcome of that analysis. See Alfred, 60 F.4th at 982.

                                         II.
          Alternatively, were his challenge not barred, Turman’s claim would
   also fail on the merits. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230–31 (5th
   Cir. 2006) (explaining that appeal waivers are not jurisdictional); United
   States v. Smith, 528 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 2008) (pretermitting
   consideration of an appeal waiver and resolving a restitution case on the
   merits). Because Turman did not object to the restitution order in the district
   court, we review for plain error. United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695
   F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2012). To satisfy plain-error review, a “defendant
   must show a clear or obvious error that affects his substantial rights” and

                                         3
Case: 22-10208      Document: 00516850853            Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                      No. 22-10208

   even then, “our court has discretion to correct that error, and generally will
   do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
   judicial proceedings.” United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 287 (5th
   Cir. 2011).
          In his opening brief, Turman argued that the district court plainly
   erred by failing to conduct a Paroline analysis. After Turman filed his opening
   brief, however, the district court granted the Government’s unopposed
   motion to supplement the record, and the district court stated that it had
   relied on the supplemental material and considered the Paroline factors in
   ordering restitution. Therefore, in his reply brief, Turman needed to show
   that the district court made a clear or obvious error in awarding $38,000 in
   restitution based on the supplemented record.
          Contending that the district court did not fully explain its analysis of
   the Paroline factors on the record at sentencing—when Turman did not
   object to the restitution amount—does not satisfy the requirement of plain
   error. See United States v. Rosenblatt, 788 F. App’x 960, 961 (5th Cir. 2019).
   The Paroline factors are intended to serve as “guideposts” for district courts
   to consider when determining a proper restitution amount that reflects the
   “relative causal significance of the defendant’s conduct in producing [the
   victim’s] losses,” not “rigid” requirements to be mechanically applied. 572
   U.S. at 460. The factors include:
          [1] the number of past criminal defendants found to have
          contributed to the victim’s general losses; [2] reasonable
          predictions of the number of future offenders likely to be
          caught and convicted for crimes contributing to the victim’s
          general losses; [3] any available and reasonably reliable
          estimate of the broader number of offenders involved (most of
          whom will, of course, never be caught or convicted);
          [4] whether the defendant reproduced or distributed images of
          the victim; [5] whether the defendant had any connection to

                                           4
Case: 22-10208      Document: 00516850853          Page: 5    Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 22-10208

          the initial production of the images; [6] how many images of
          the victim the defendant possessed; and [7] other facts relevant
          to the defendant’s relative causal role.
   Id. at 459–60. These factors cannot be converted into a “formula”; rather,
   guided by the factors, district courts must ultimately use their discretion to
   determine a proper restitution amount. Id. at 460; see Alfred, 60 F.4th at 982
   (explaining that a district court’s Paroline analysis involves the exercise of
   “discretion and sound judgment” to fashion an appropriate restitution
   order).
          Of the six victims who requested restitution, all except one addressed
   the Paroline factors in the supporting documents they submitted to the
   district court. While the sixth victim did not discuss the Paroline factors, the
   information in her restitution claim was sufficient for the district court to
   undertake a Paroline analysis. In his reply brief, Turman asserts that the
   evidence was insufficient to sustain the restitution awards and argues for a
   lower restitution amount, but he fails to show that awarding the requested
   amounts instead of the statutory minimum amount of $3,000 per victim
   constituted plain error.
          In sum, given that the district court received sufficient evidence of the
   victims’ losses and applied the Paroline factors to calculate an appropriate
   restitution order, Turman cannot show a clear or obvious error that affects
   his substantial rights.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          5