United States v. Fast
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121512
D. Neb.2011Background
- Fast used LimeWire and the Gnutella network to download child pornography beginning June 25, 2010; law enforcement accessed some of the material online.
- "Vicky" (the victim) seeks restitution totaling $952,759.81 against Fast.
- The court awards Vicky $19,863.84 in restitution, with breakdowns including attorney fees, expenses, and medical/psychological care and lost income.
- Restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 is mandatory and applies to specified categories with different causation requirements.
- Categories (A–E) under § 2259(b)(3) have no proximate causation requirement; category (F) requires proximate causation.
- Losses after June 25, 2010 may be recovered; losses prior to that date are not recoverable; the restitution order is joint and several with other offenders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is restitution mandatory under § 2259? | Vicky seeks full statutory restitution. | Not stated; Fast’s position not dispositive for the court’s ruling here. | Yes, restitution is mandatory. |
| Does proximate causation apply to all § 2259(b)(3) categories? | All losses are recoverable without proximate causation. | Proximate causation should apply to certain categories. | Proximate causation applies only to the catchall 'other losses' (F); A–E have no proximate causation requirement. |
| Must the losses awarded be caused by Fast? | Losses must be causally connected to Fast’s offense. | Not specifically addressed; focus on causation standard. | Losses under A–E must be caused (in whole or in part) by Fast. |
| What is the appropriate restitution amount for Vicky? | Full proposed amount ($952,759.81) should be awarded. | Not specified here; arguments focus on statutory framework. | Awarded $19,863.84 as restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- In Re Amy Unknown, 636 F.3d 190 (5th Cir.2011) (discusses proximate causation and MVRA interpretation)
- United States v. Ekanem, 383 F.3d 40 (2d Cir.2004) (MVRA restitution expansion purpose)
- United States v. Perry, 360 F.3d 519 (6th Cir.2004) (pro-victim legislative attitude in MVRA)