United States v. Caleb Wien

── United States v. Caleb Wien ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10685 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10685 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CALEB ROBERT WIEN, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cr-00109-SPC-NPM-1 ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant Caleb Wien appeals the district court’s order of a total of $25,000 in restitution to three victims of child pornography, imposed as part of his sentence for possessing and USCA11 Case: 25-10685 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10685 accessing with intent to view prepubescent child pornography. He first argues that he had a constitutional right under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to have a jury make fact findings regarding the amount of restitution he owed. Second, he argues that the district court was required to disaggregate victims’ total losses from the losses caused by their initial abusers when calculating restitution. After careful review, we affirm. I. We review “the legality of a restitution order” de novo. United States v. Kluge, 147 F.4th 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2025). Defendants convicted of sexual exploitation of children of- fenses are required to pay restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 2259(a), (b)(4)(A). For convictions of trafficking in child pornography, “[t]he court shall determine the full amount of the victim’s losses that were in- curred or are reasonably projected to be incurred by the victim as a result of the trafficking in child pornography depicting the vic- tim,” and then “order restitution in an amount that reflects the de- fendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the vic- tim’s losses, but which is no less than $3,000.” Id. § 2259(b)(2)(A)-(B). “A victim’s total aggregate recovery . . . shall not exceed the full amount of the victim’s demonstrated losses.” Id. § 2259(b)(2)(C). A proper restitution amount “comports with the defend- ant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s general losses.” Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434, 458 (2014). The government must prove the amount by a preponderance of USCA11 Case: 25-10685 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-10685 Opinion of the Court 3 the evidence, but a district court can accept a “reasonable estimate of the loss.” United States v. Rothenberg, 923 F.3d 1309, 1337 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted)). In Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that, other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the pen- alty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). In Alleyne v. United States,