United States v. Burke
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date FiledOctober 26, 2026
Docket24-20369
StatusUnpublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Case: 24-20369 Document: 143-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2026
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 24-20369 October 26, 2026
Summary Calendar
Thomas B. Plunkett, III
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Cody Wayne Burke,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-162-1
______________________________
Before Davis, Richman, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cody Wayne Burke pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child
pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. He now
appeals the restitution orders imposed by the court pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 2259, and he additionally argues that his convictions and sentences for both
possession and receipt of child pornography violate the Double Jeopardy
Clause of the Fifth Amendment because possession of child pornography is
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-20369 Document: 143-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2026
No. 24-20369
a lesser-included offense of receipt. He did not preserve either issue in the
district court, so our review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556
U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
First, in light of the materials included with the presentence report
adopted by the district court and the amounts awarded to the victims, Burke
has not demonstrated that any error related to a proximate cause analysis
affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Teijeiro, 79 F.4th 387, 395-
96 (5th Cir. 2023). Second, Burke’s multiplicity challenge fails because he
has not demonstrated that the claimed error is clear or obvious. See Puckett,
556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2