United States v. Brandon Leal, 933 F.3d 426

Brandon Leal pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1); district court sentenced him to 240 months and ordered $58,415 restitution to a victim identified as "Andy."
Leal brought electronic devices into the U.S. containing hundreds of child-pornography images and dozens of videos, some showing infants and sadistic abuse.
Andy submitted a restitution claim estimating $2,121,963 in general losses (future counseling and lost income) and sought $25,000 for general losses plus $33,415 in expert fees; Andy acknowledged Leal was not the producer of the images.
The probation office recommended the full $58,415; Leal reviewed the PSR addendum, raised no objections at sentencing, and later filed a pro se notice of appeal.
Leal argued on appeal that the restitution order violated Paroline’s proximate-cause requirement; the government contended the appeal was barred by Leal’s plea-waiver.
The Fifth Circuit found jurisdiction despite a defective notice of appeal, held Leal’s statutory-maximum challenge was not barred by his waiver, and reviewed the restitution order for plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Andy)	Defendant's Argument (Leal)	Held
Whether appeal is barred by plea-waiver	Waiver covers restitution; appeal should be dismissed	Waiver does not bar challenge that sentence exceeds statutory maximum under Paroline	Waiver did not bar Leal’s statutory-maximum/Paroline challenge; appellate review allowed
Standard of review for unpreserved restitution objection	N/A	Plain-error review applies because Leal did not object below	Court applies plain-error standard (Olano/Molina-Martinez)
Whether $25,000 award for general losses satisfied Paroline proximate-cause requirement	$25,000 was reasonable given §2255 civil damages guidance and Andy’s showing	District court failed to analyze proximate causation under Paroline; award unsupported	No plain error: $25,000 is within Paroline’s broad guidance and not grossly disproportionate
Whether $33,415 in expert fees required apportionment among multiple defendants	Expert costs are recoverable as proximate result of offenses; full award appropriate	District court failed to apportion fees among other defendants who may have caused same costs	No plain error: absent evidence of duplicative recovery or other convicted defendants, assessing full expert costs against Leal did not undermine fairness

Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (restitution under §2259 requires proximate causation and guidance for apportioning liability among many possessors)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (plain-error standard articulated for sentencing errors)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (framework for plain-error review)
United States v. Winchel, 896 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2018) (Paroline-based restitution claim treated as challenge to sentence exceeding statutory maximum)
United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2014) (appeal-waiver interpretation and limits on waiving statutory-maximum challenges)
United States v. White, 258 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2001) (courts may review substantive legal defects despite plea waivers)
Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019) (noting some claims are unwaivable and waivers do not bar all appellate review)