United States v. Hollman, 1:18-cr-10037

Defendant Charles G. Hollman pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
Two victims (identified as “Jenny” and “Tara”) later sought restitution; Tara withdrew her claim and Jenny sought $3,000.
The District Judge referred the restitution determination to the Magistrate Judge after sentencing; the Government submitted a memorandum and victim impact statement but presented no evidentiary proof of Jenny’s concrete losses.
The Government argued restitution of $3,000 was appropriate under Paroline and noted pending legislation (later enacted) that would set a $3,000 floor in trafficking cases.
The Magistrate Judge found the Government failed to prove the victim’s total losses as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) and Paroline/Sainz methodology, and therefore recommended no restitution order.
The opinion also noted Jenny may instead seek $35,000 from the Child Pornography Victims Reserve under the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act if she elects to do so.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution should be ordered under 18 U.S.C. § 2259	Govt: $3,000 restitution appropriate; Paroline factors support award; no evidentiary hearing needed	Hollman: limited ability to pay; age on release should be considered; no hearing necessary	No restitution ordered—Govt failed to prove victim’s total losses, as §3664(e) requires
Whether Paroline’s methodology permits assigning a share without first calculating total losses	Govt: Paroline factors justify $3,000 award	N/A (defendant focused on ability to pay)	Court: Paroline requires first calculating victim’s total (aggregate) losses; cannot proceed to relative-share analysis without that figure
Effect of the 2018 Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act (adding a $3,000 minimum for trafficking convictions)	Govt: statute supports $3,000 (not binding at time of initial memorandum)	N/A	Court: Act requires courts to first determine full amount of victim’s losses before applying $3,000 floor; statute does not allow skipping the total-loss determination
Whether court may use restitution awards in other cases to infer victim’s total losses	Govt: cited eleven prior restitution orders to Jenny	Defendant: not argued on this point	Court: prior dockets did not calculate Jenny’s total losses; no reliable source exists in record to establish total losses, so cannot compute relative share

Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (establishes that restitution requires calculating victim’s aggregate losses and assigning a defendant a relative share based on causal role)
United States v. Sainz, 827 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2016) (applied Paroline: court computed total loss then apportioned defendant’s share using prosecuted-offender count)
United States v. Bour, 804 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2015) (discusses timing and procedure for imposing restitution and victims’ opportunity for timely relief)
United States v. Brick, 905 F.2d 1092 (7th Cir. 1990) (restitution orders must be supported by factual basis and cannot be arbitrary)