United States v. Christopher Clark

USCA11 Case: 25-11441 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/18/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 25-11441 Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER DAVID CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cr-00441-JSM-NHA-1

____________________ ____________________

No. 25-11466 Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11441 versus CHRISTOPHER DAVID CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cr-00441-JSM-NHA-1 ____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher David Clark appeals the restitution component of his sentence, which the district court imposed following his con- victions for child pornography offenses, under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (a)(4)(B), (b)(1), & (b)(2). Clark raises two issues on appeal, but he concedes that each are foreclosed by binding prece- dent. After careful review, we affirm.

Under our prior panel precedent rule, we are bound to fol- low our own prior binding precedent until it is overruled by the Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc. United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Lee, 886 F.3d 1161, 1163 n.3 (11th Cir. 2018). “To constitute an ‘overruling’ for the purposes of this prior panel precedent rule, the Supreme Court decision ‘must be clearly on point.’” United States v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246, 1255 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Bir- mingham Bd. of Trs., 344 F.3d 1288, 1292 (11th Cir. 2003)). “Even if the reasoning of an intervening high court decision is at odds with 25-11441 Opinion of the Court 3 a prior appellate court decision, that does not provide the appellate court with a basis for departing from its prior decision.” United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 2008).

Clark’s first argument is that the district court’s imposition of restitution was based on judicial factfinding, rather than jury factfinding, and that this procedure violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Kluge, 147 F.4th 1291, 1301–03 (11th Cir. 2025). His concession is correct. In Kluge, we held that restitution orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 are not criminal penalties and rejected a similar argument based on the Supreme Court’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment jurisprudence. Kluge, 147 F.4th at 1301–03. Thus, un- der our prior precedent rule, we are bound to apply Kluge, reject Clark’s first argument, and affirm on this issue. White, 837 F.3d at 1228; Lee, 886 F.3d at 1163 n.3. 1

Clark’s second argument is that the district court’s imposi- tion of $14,500.00 in restitution was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offenses and, therefore, violated the Eighth Amend- ment’s prohibition against excessive fines. He concedes that our decision in United States v. Sotelo, 130 F.4th 1229, 1250 n.9 (11th Cir. 1 In his reply brief, Clark asserts that Kluge may be inconsistent with the Su- preme Court’s recent decision in Ellingburg v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 564 (2026). However, “[e]ven if the reasoning of” Ellingburg “is at odds with” Kluge, “that does not [us] with a basis for departing from” Kluge, Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d at 1237, because Ellingburg addressed a different question than Kluge did, see Kaley, 579 F.3d at 1255.

4 Opinion of the Court 25-11441 2025), forecloses this issue. 2 In Sotelo, we held that the $3,000 man- datory minimum restitution sum in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)(B) was not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of possessing child por- nography. Id. at 1250 n.9. Accordingly, Clark’s concession on this point is also proper, and we must affirm on this issue as well.

For the reasons we have explained, our prior precedents foreclose Clark’s arguments on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

2 As a technical matter, we reviewed this issue only for plain error in Sotelo. See 130 F.4th at 1250 n.9. Nonetheless, Clark is correct that the language of the Sotelo opinion directly forecloses his challenge. See id. (“[I]n any event, a $3,000 minimum amount for restitution is not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of possessing child pornography.”).