United States v. Amy Unknown
636 F.3d 190
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Amy Unknown, a victim of childhood sexual abuse, sought restitution under the CVRA against Paroline for the ongoing harm from others viewing her images.
- NCMEC reported identifying over 35,000 images of Amy's abuse across more than 3,200 cases since 1998, described as extremely graphic.
- Paroline pled guilty to possession of child pornography; Amy requested $3,367,854 for lost income, legal fees, and ongoing care.
- The district court denied restitution, holding that proximate causation was required for Paroline’s possession to be the proximate cause of Amy's losses.
- A prior Fifth Circuit panel denied mandamus; this panel granted panel rehearing and mandamus, remanding to quantify Amy's restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proximate causation is required for all §2259 losses | Amy seeks full restitution without broad proximate causation across all losses. | Paroline contends proximate causation governs all listed loss categories. | Proximate causation applies only to the catchall §2259(b)(3)(F); not to every loss category. |
| Whether the CVRA allows direct §1291 appeal or mandamus review for restitution | Amy argues for direct appeal and/or mandamus review of the denial of restitution. | Government maintains that mandamus is the exclusive review path and direct appeal is not available. | Mandamus review is appropriate; the court need not decide a broad direct-appeal right. |
| Whether Amy is a 'victim' with a recoverable right to restitution under MVRA §2259 | Amy is a victim whose losses should be fully compensated under the statute. | Limiting interpretation would allow a narrower recovery. | Amy is entitled to restitution, with the district court quantifying amount attributable to Paroline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345 (1920) (used to discuss interpreting lists and causation language in statutes)
- Seatrain Lines, Inc. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 411 U.S. 726 (1973) (catchall categorization and the role of legislative intent in lists)
- Norris, United States v., 159 F.3d 926 (5th Cir. 1998) (possessors of child pornography are not mere indirect causes)
- Perry, United States v., 360 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2004) (restitution rights and pre-CVRA context for victims' appeals)
- Hunter, United States v., 548 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 2008) (limits on direct victim appeals under CVRA)
- Kones, United States v., 77 F.3d 66 (3d Cir. 1996) (pre-CVRA direct-appeal considerations for restitution)