United States v. Aumais
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18620
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Aumais was arrested at the Fort Covington, NY border in Nov 2008 after border agents found thousands of child-pornography images and videos in his car; he admitted downloading from a peer-to-peer network.
- He pled guilty on Feb 4, 2009 to transporting and possessing child pornography in foreign commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) and (a)(5)(B).
- The district court imposed a 121-month term of imprisonment and ordered restitution of $48,483 under § 2259 to Amy, a victim depicted in the images.
- The PSR calculated an offense level of 32 and a criminal history of I, yielding a Guidelines range of 121–151 months; he received a 5-year supervised release term.
- A magistrate judge held a restitution hearing, finding Amy was a victim and that Aumais’ possession of her images exacerbated her harm, recommending $48,483.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation; restitution and related issues moved to appeal, including whether proximate causation required by § 2259 was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Amy a 'victim' under §2259(c)? | Government argued Amy is a victim as defined by §2259(c). | Aumais contends the restitution framework does not extend to his consumer-level possession absent proximate causation. | Amy is a victim under §2259(c). |
| Must Amy's losses be proximately caused by Aumais' possession of her images? | Government contends proximate causation is met for harms tied to the images' circulation. | Aumais argues there is no proximate link between his possession and Amy's specific losses. | Losses must be proximately caused by the defendant's offense; here, proximate causation was not established. |
| Did the district court correctly resolve restitution given proximate-cause limitations and potential double recovery? | Government sought full loss recovery consistent with §2259 and MVRA; monitoring was suggested to avoid double recovery. | Aumais challenges the scope and allocation of restitution across multiple cases and liability apportionment. | Restitution cannot exceed losses proximately caused by Aumais; allocation issues and joint/several liability deflate the award; affirmed in part and reversed in part on restitution. |
| Was the district court's sentencing procedurally reasonable in applying an advisory Guidelines regime? | Government contends the court conducted an individualized § 3553(a) assessment within advisory guidelines. | Aumais argues Dorvee undermines the reasonableness of the sentence due to § 2G2.2 enhancements. | Sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (distribution of child porn relates to abuse; harm to child persists via circulation)
- United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir.2011) (proximate cause required for restitution under §2259)
- United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C.Cir.2011) (proximate cause required under §2259)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1978) (proximate causation principles rely on traditional tort/criminal law concepts)
- Holmes v. S. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1992) (proximate cause requires direct relation between injury and conduct)
- United States v. Pearson, 570 F.3d 480 (2d Cir.2009) (restoration for future medical expenses under §2259)
- United States v. Nucci, 364 F.3d 419 (2d Cir.2004) (joint and several liability; avoid double recovery under MVRA)
- Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.2010) (Dorvee warns about §2G2.2-driven unreasonable sentences without care)
- United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir.2011) (evidence linking defendant to harms in restitution context is needed)