68 F.4th 725
1st Cir.2023Background
- In 2001 Cardozo (then 17) had a sexual encounter with Doe (then 13). Doe published an essay in 2016 describing the encounter, after which Cardozo engaged in prolonged anonymous online harassment and threats from 2016–2018.
- Doe incurred legal and related expenses (Florida and New York counsel, travel, communications with prosecutors, and a private investigator hired by her family) because of the harassment and protective-order proceedings.
- Cardozo pleaded guilty to cyberstalking and interstate threats; district court sentenced him and later ordered restitution of $72,112.62 based on billing statements submitted by Doe/the government.
- Cardozo appealed the restitution order, arguing MVRA procedural defects, unreliability of billing records, lack of proximate causation for some charges, unreasonableness of certain fees/travel/duplication, and a numerical discrepancy in the claimed totals.
- The First Circuit upheld the restitution in large part but found a $4,308.93 portion of the award unsupported by the record and reduced the award to $67,803.69; other challenges failed under abuse-of-discretion/plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVRA procedural compliance (probation officer report) | Government relied on its proffered billing evidence; restitution may be submitted after sentencing | Cardozo: MVRA required probation officer to prepare a restitution report; omission prejudiced defendant | Plain-error review: no prejudice shown; government proffered sufficient info; no relief. |
| Reliability of billing records | Billing statements (date, hours, rates, descriptions) are reliable business records sufficient for restitution | Cardozo: statements unsworn, insufficiently corroborated or detailed | Abuse-of-discretion/plain-error: court did not clearly err; statements were sufficiently detailed and reliable. |
| Proximate causation for specific charges (PI altercation, communications, extra trip) | Fees were foreseeable and proximate to harassment (publisher communications, USAO contact, travel for hearings) | Cardozo: some charges not proximately caused (investigator altercation, publisher-related review, duplicative second trip) | Court: proximate-cause requirement satisfied for challenged categories; defendant failed to identify clear, non-duplicative charges warranting exclusion. |
| Unsupported/overstated award (numerical discrepancy) | Government urged court could rely on requested total | Cardozo: award exceeded sum of billed charges by $4,308.93 and lacked evidentiary support | Plain error found: $4,308.93 had no record support; restitution reduced to $67,803.69. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018) (section 2264 requires restitution for the full amount of the victim's losses)
- United States v. Naphaeng, 906 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2018) (restitution must reasonably respond to reliable evidence)
- United States v. Sánchez-Maldonado, 737 F.3d 826 (1st Cir. 2013) (courts may consider relevant information with indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Kearney, 672 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2012) (proximate cause/foreseeability governs restitution causation)
- Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (causation principles for restitution damages)
- United States v. De Jesús-Torres, 64 F.4th 33 (1st Cir. 2023) (each restitution component must correspond to reliable evidence)