United States v. Jesus Villalobos, 879 F.3d 169

Defendant Jesus Villalobos pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 for inducing his 11‑year‑old daughter to send sexually explicit photos.
Victim attended therapy; mother and stepfather missed work to attend; mother submitted no dollar amounts or supporting documents on Victim Impact Statement.
Presentence Report noted no reported restitution; at sentencing the prosecutor recounted conversations with the victim’s family but provided no specific dollar figures or documentation.
The district court orally ordered $10,000 in restitution (after initially announcing $100,000 conditioned on ability to pay) but listed Total Loss as $0.00 in the written judgment.
Villalobos appealed the restitution order as arbitrary and unsupported by the record; the government asked to supplement the record on remand to establish loss figures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restitution award is supported by the record	Government: district court may remand to develop record and quantify victim losses	Villalobos: award is arbitrary; government shouldn’t get a second chance to present evidence on remand	Restitution vacated and remanded for proceedings to determine whether special circumstances permit supplementation of evidence
Whether a restitution order that contradicts recorded "Total Loss" is lawful	Government sought to justify amount prospectively by developing evidence on remand	Villalobos argued an order exceeding record-supported losses is illegal	Court held that an order exceeding supported losses is illegal and vacated the award
Who bears burden to prove loss amount	Government bears burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) to prove victim losses	Villalobos relied on government’s failure to meet that burden at sentencing	Court reaffirmed government’s burden and permitted district court to consider whether special circumstances justify allowing new evidence on remand
Whether exceptions allow new evidence on remand	Government argued exceptions apply because victim’s mother could not speak and evidence was not presented	Villalobos argued general rule barring new evidence should apply	Court identified precedent permitting exceptions for "special circumstances" and remanded for district court to decide applicability

United States v. Gibson, 875 F.3d 179 (5th Cir.) (review standards for restitution orders)
Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (restitution must apply lawfully and not be capricious)
United States v. Chem. & Metal Indus., Inc., 677 F.3d 750 (5th Cir.) (vacating restitution where there was no finding of loss)
United States v. Archer, 671 F.3d 149 (2d Cir.) (discussing when government may present new evidence on remand)
United States v. Jimenez, [citation="692 F. App'x 192"] (5th Cir.) (permitting remand where victims sought to help calculate restitution and harm was to victims)