United States v. Anthony, 22 F.4th 943

Curtis Anthony was convicted of child-sex trafficking and conspiracy; sentenced to 10 years and ordered to pay restitution; this appeal concerns restitution to victim R.W.
R.W. had been trafficked and abused by multiple actors: William Johnson (30‑year sentence; $900,000 restitution), Maurice Johnson (20 years; $327,013.50 restitution), and others; Anthony’s contact with R.W. was a single encounter during a three‑week trafficking period.
On initial appeal (Anthony I), the Tenth Circuit vacated the restitution award to R.W., holding TVPRA restitution must be limited to losses the defendant but‑for caused (rejecting a sufficient‑cause theory for restitution) and remanded for recalculation.
On remand the Government submitted Dr. C. David Missar’s report seeking $1,143,000 in restitution for R.W. (lifetime therapy/medication, tutoring, and lost wages), but the report did not apportion losses to Anthony specifically.
The district court denied restitution without a hearing, finding the report failed to show which losses R.W. would not have suffered but for Anthony’s conduct; the Government appealed and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Government proved but‑for causation for restitution to R.W.	Dr. Missar shows Anthony’s offense produced trauma and that R.W. would need identical treatment even absent prior traumas, satisfying causation	Missar did not disaggregate harms or apportion losses to Anthony; therefore no but‑for causation shown	Government failed to meet but‑for causation burden; restitution properly denied
Whether district court abused discretion by denying restitution when Anthony offered no contrary evidence	Court should have awarded restitution because defendant offered no rebuttal	Government bore the burden to prove causation and amount by preponderance; failure means zero award is proper	No abuse; government had burden and did not meet it
Whether the court excluded Dr. Missar’s report under Daubert	Government asserts report was effectively excluded	District court evaluated substance of report and found it insufficient on causation, not excluded under Daubert	No Daubert exclusion; district court properly assessed report’s substance
Whether district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing	Hearing was required to resolve factual disputes and permit testimony	Hearing is discretionary under § 3664(d)(4); Government did not request one	No error; court not required to hold hearing and did not abuse discretion

United States v. Anthony, 942 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2019) (vacated restitution to R.W.; requires but‑for causation for TVPRA restitution)
Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (explains sufficient‑cause concept vs. but‑for causation)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (but‑for causation can often be shown; precision in restitution calculations not absolute)
Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (illustrates but‑for causation test—change one thing at a time)
United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 2002) (restitution must be based on actual loss)
United States v. Galloway, 509 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2007) (government must prove amount of loss by preponderance)
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017) (government bears burden to prove losses by preponderance)
United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (example where restitution award was supported by evidence; distinguished here)