United States v. Derek Clemens, 990 F.3d 1127

Derek Clemens admitted taking photos in a gas-station bathroom; warrant search of his devices uncovered >100 images and ~75 videos of child pornography, including materials of a victim called “Tara.”
Clemens pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1)).
District court sentenced him to 108 months’ imprisonment and 10 years supervised release, ordered $3,000 restitution to Tara, and imposed a supervised-release condition banning possession/viewing/production/use of materials depicting sexually explicit, sexually stimulating, sexually oriented, or pornographic materials.
Clemens appealed, arguing (1) the $3,000 restitution exceeds the losses for which he can be held and (2) the special-condition language is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed: it held the 2018 amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 2259 authorized the $3,000 mandatory minimum restitution based on the victim’s total trafficking-related losses, and it rejected the vagueness/overbreadth challenge to the supervised-release restriction given Clemens’s offense and history.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Clemens)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Restitution amount under amended § 2259	$3,000 exceeds losses he can be held responsible for; court should disaggregate pre-offense losses and only assign losses causally traceable to him	Amended § 2259 requires the court to determine the victim’s full trafficking-related losses and then impose an amount reflecting defendant’s relative role but not less than $3,000	Affirmed. Amended § 2259 authorizes determining the victim’s full losses from trafficking; mandatory minimum $3,000 was properly imposed where victim’s total losses exceed that amount and aggregate recoveries don’t exceed losses
Supervised-release ban on sexually explicit/"pornographic" materials	Terms are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, potentially barring lawful adult materials protected by the First Amendment	Condition is reasonably related to offense and Clemens’s history; courts have upheld similar restrictions for child-pornography offenders	Affirmed. Given Clemens’s offense and history, the condition was a permissible, individualized restriction; First Amendment challenge foreclosed by circuit precedent

Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (established restitution framework for possessors of child-pornography materials when direct causation to specific losses is infeasible)
United States v. Bordman, 895 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2018) (applied Paroline pre-amendment and treated disaggregation as a non-rigid factor)
United States v. Deatherage, 682 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012) (upheld adult-pornography restriction on supervised release when relevant to defendant’s history)
United States v. Mefford, 711 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2013) (upheld broad pornography prohibition where defendant’s history made restriction relevant)
United States v. Hobbs, 710 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2013) (upheld sexually stimulating/sexually oriented material restrictions after individualized inquiry)
United States v. Demers, 634 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2011) (upheld supervised-release restriction on pornographic materials)