United States v. Albert Burgess, Jr., 684 F.3d 445

Burgess convicted of two federal counts for possession and receipt of child pornography; sentence 292 months’ imprisonment and life supervised release; restitution ordered $305,219.86 to victim “Vicky” under 18 U.S.C. §2259.
ICE/execute-search linked Burgess via website payments; search of his Hendersonville, NC home yielded 327 discs and Burgess’ PC with thousands of images/video files.
Burgess waived Miranda rights during interview; he admitted viewing child pornography regularly and provided sources; later statements followed meetings with agents.
Burgess indicted March 17, 2009; initial appearance April 14, 2009; pretrial detention issues (Speedy Trial Act, Sixth Amendment) raised and reviewed on appeal.
District court imposed two Sentencing Guidelines enhancements: 4-level for sadistic/masochistic content and 5-level for pattern of sexual exploitation; restitution calculation contested for proximate causation.
The opinion affirms convictions and most sentences, vacates restitution amount, remands for individualized proximate-causation determination and restitution calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution: proximate causation required for losses	Burgess seeks full restitution regardless of causation	Burgess argues proximate causation limitations apply	Proximate causation required; remand for calculation of Burgess’s proximately caused losses
Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment timing	Prosecution timely under ACT; discovery of charges delayed due to state custody	Rights violated due to delay	No reversible error; acts did not trigger ACT or Sixth Amendment protections for federal charges that followed state custody
Suppression of March 2008 statements	Statements arose from cooperation; implied immunity	No meeting of the minds on immunity	District court did not err; no immunity agreement established; statements admissible
District court’s handling of jury question	Clarification to jury necessary to resolve ambiguity	Response could prejudice defense	Courts’ response reasonable; no prejudicial error

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (speedy-trial four-factor test; presumptive prejudice threshold)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (postaccusation delay presumptively prejudicial near one year)
United States v. Woolfolk, 399 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 2005) (Speedy Trial Act activation requires federal restraint of liberty)
Thomas v. United States, 55 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 1995) (ACT activation tied to arrest/indictment on federal charge)
United States v. Rodriguez-Amaya, 521 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of ACT interpretation; factual findings for clear error)
Monzel v. United States, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (proximate causation in restitution; per-person damages across multi-defendant cases)
United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2011) (proximate causation framework for restitution in child-porn cases)
In re Amy Unknown, 636 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 2011) (early approach to proximate causation in restitution; discussed Monzel follow-on)
United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122 (3d Cir. 1999) (restitution proximate-causation interpretation debated)
United States v. Kearney, 672 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2012) (proximate causation required for restitution to victim depicted in child pornography)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (recognizes harm continuing from possession/dispersion of child porn)
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) (continued existence of pornography causes ongoing harm)