United States v. Hagerman
586 F. App'x 64
2d Cir.2014Background
- Hagerman pled guilty to one count of receiving and one count of possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) & (B).
- The district court ordered restitution to a victim under § 2259, calculating it by dividing the victim’s total losses by the number of defendants with the victim’s images (per capita method).
- On appeal in 2012, we reversed the initial restitution amount for calculation error but upheld the district court’s per capita method and the finding that Hagerman proximately caused a portion of the losses.
- After Paroline and Burrage decisions were issued, Hagerman argued those rulings undermined the district court’s causation framework.
- The district court on remand again set restitution using the per capita method and attributed a portion of the losses to Hagerman’s conduct, with no objection from Hagerman.
- This Second Circuit summary order AFFIRMS the district court’s restitution award as within range and supported by proximate and factual causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution adheres to Paroline's causation framework | Hagerman argues Paroline dictates proportional relief by relative causation. | Hagerman contends Burrage undermines causation standards and affects the award. | Restitution upheld under proximate and factual causation. |
| Whether the per capita method properly apportions losses | Hagerman did not contest the calculation method below. | N/A | District court’s per capita division remains within permissible discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (U.S. 2014) (endorses proximate causation framework for § 2259 restitution)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (U.S. 2014) (but-for causation standard discussed for analogous provision)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (U.S. 2010) (reaffirmed deference to district court factual findings and standard of review)
- United States v. Paul, 634 F.3d 668 (2d Cir. 2011) (restoration/restitution framework and permissible discretion)
- United States v. Hagerman, 506 F. App’x 14 (2d Cir. 2012) (restitution calculation error on initial appeal; per capita method upheld)