United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258

Steven Burns, a Rock Springs, WY postal custodian, pled guilty to possessing stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 for thefts from Dec 1, 2013–Jan 25, 2014.
The district court ordered one year probation and $3,090.58 in restitution under the MVRA based on 47 specific pieces of stolen mail.
Burns conceded possession of 42 items (totaling $1,458.04) but contested five items (prescription meds, NHL sweatshirt, camera with accessories, silicon carbide, and an eBay tablet).
After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Burns took the five disputed items; missing-mail reports to the post office stopped after his suspension.
Burns appealed only the restitution order, arguing (1) clear error as to the five items and (2) that Apprendi requires a jury to find facts underlying restitution beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the restitution award and granted the Government’s motion to seal its Certificate of Interested Parties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Burns possessed five disputed items	Government: proved possession of the five items by a preponderance given delivery records, missing-item complaints, Burns’ admissions, and timing	Burns: alternative explanations (items lost elsewhere, never reached Rock Springs, taken by others, oversized/unaccessible)	No clear error; evidence supported finding that Burns more likely than not took the five items; restitution amount affirmed
Whether Apprendi requires a jury to find facts underlying a restitution award beyond a reasonable doubt	Government: restitution is compensatory; precedent treats it non-punitive so Apprendi inapplicable	Burns: Paroline suggests restitution has punitive aspects, so Apprendi should apply; preserving issue for review	Rejected: even if restitution has punitive aspects, Apprendi applies only to facts that increase a sentence beyond a statutory maximum or mandatory minimum; restitution has no statutory maximum to trigger Apprendi

United States v. Kalu, 791 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir.) (standard of review: clear error for MVRA restitution factual findings)
United States v. Dewberry, 790 F.3d 1022 (10th Cir.) (view evidence in light most favorable to sentencing court’s factual findings)
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007) (MVRA restitution considered compensatory, not punitive)
Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (Supreme Court: restitution primarily remedial but may serve punitive purposes)
United States v. Griffith, 584 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir.) (sentencing court cannot order restitution in excess of victims’ actual losses)