United States v. Christian Winchel
896 F.3d 387
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Christian Winchel pleaded guilty to producing, transporting, and possessing child pornography and was sentenced to 600 months imprisonment.
- The district court ordered $1,443,619.63 in restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259.
- Winchel appealed, arguing the restitution order violated Paroline because the district court did not find his conduct proximately caused the victims’ losses.
- The Government moved to dismiss based on an appeal-waiver in Winchel’s plea agreement; Winchel reserved the right to appeal a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum.
- The Fifth Circuit held the Paroline challenge falls within the reserved carve-out (a restitution order lacking the required proximate-causation finding exceeds the statutory maximum) and denied the Government’s motion to dismiss.
- The court reviewed for plain error (Winchel did not object below), found all plain-error prongs met, vacated the restitution order, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Paroline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winchel waived his right to appeal the restitution order | Winchel preserved right to appeal sentence exceeding statutory maximum; restitution lacking proximate-causation finding exceeds statutory maximum | Government: general appeal waiver bars the appeal | Court: Waiver does not bar this appeal; carve-out applies because restitution without proximate causation exceeds statutory maximum |
| Whether the restitution order complied with § 2259/Paroline’s proximate-causation requirement | Winchel: district court failed to determine proximate causation as required by Paroline | Government: restitution order stands; further proceedings unnecessary because collection is unlikely | Court: District court erred by ordering restitution without a proximate-causation finding under Paroline |
| Standard of review for unpreserved restitution error | Winchel: plain-error review applies and error is clear under Paroline | Government conceded first three plain-error prongs but urged denial under fourth prong | Court: Plain-error prongs satisfied and the error warrants correction under the fourth prong because it undermines fairness and integrity |
| Whether remand is required | Winchel: vacatur and remand for proper proximate-causation proceedings | Government: remand unnecessary given remote likelihood of collection | Court: Vacated restitution and remanded for further proceedings despite low collection prospects |
Key Cases Cited
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (restitution under § 2259 requires proximate causation)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (courts should correct forfeited plain errors that affect fairness, integrity, or public reputation)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (four-part plain-error framework)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard and fourth-prong discretion)
- United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of whether appeal waiver bars appeal)
- United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (explaining plain-error prerequisites)
- United States v. Maturin, 488 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2007) (vacatur warranted where restitution error increased amount significantly)
- United States v. Austin, 479 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007) (ordering restitution greater than actual loss affects fairness and integrity)