United States v. Kindy Romero-Medrano, 899 F.3d 356

Romero-Medrano was convicted by a jury of distributing and possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A and sentenced to 135 months’ imprisonment, 20 years’ supervised release, and $10,397.68 restitution.
Two victims (pseudonyms “Vicky” and “Sarah”) sought restitution of $10,000 and $15,000 respectively; the district court held additional hearings and awarded $3,944.35 to Vicky and $6,453.33 to Sarah.
The district court computed awards by dividing each victim’s claimed total economic loss by the number of prior restitution orders plus one, then applied percentage adjustments (10% and 20% reductions and a 10% distributor increase for Sarah).
At trial the government presented evidence that Romero-Medrano installed Wirestack (a peer-to-peer program), stored child pornography in a shared folder, and that law enforcement downloaded files from his residence; settings were later changed to limit sharing.
Defense argued the government failed to prove knowing distribution (installation could have left defaults in place; settings change suggested he tried to stop sharing). The prosecutor’s closing remarks prompted a mistrial motion alleging burden-shifting.
At sentencing the court orally prohibited possession of sexually oriented child materials; the written judgment additionally barred use of “sex-related telephone numbers,” which Romero-Medrano challenged as not orally pronounced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution amount (§2259)	District court’s 10% reduction was reasonable and award within discretion.	Romero-Medrano: reductions insufficient; court’s use of past orders for predicting future offenders was not "reasonably reliable"; proposed larger divisor.	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Paroline factors permit the court’s methodology and 10% adjustment.
Motion for mistrial (prosecutor remarks)	Government: prosecutor’s comments argued permissible inferences from evidence; court’s curative instruction cured any error.	Romero-Medrano: prosecutor’s statements effectively shifted burden and commented on his silence.	Affirmed — remarks viewed as argument, not manifest or necessarily a comment on silence; prompt jury instruction avoided prejudice.
Supervised release condition (telephone numbers)	Government/district court: written condition clarifies oral prohibition on sexually oriented/telephonic materials and reflects sentencing intent.	Romero-Medrano: condition prohibiting use of sex-related telephone numbers was not orally pronounced and thus invalid.	Affirmed — written term interpreted as clarifying oral pronouncement; no abuse of discretion.

Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (Sup. Ct.) (restitution under §2259 limited to losses proximately caused by defendant; factors for calculating award)
United States v. Richardson, 713 F.3d 232 (5th Cir.) (peer-to-peer downloads and shared folders can constitute knowing distribution)
United States v. Wharton, 320 F.3d 526 (5th Cir.) (prosecutor may not directly or indirectly comment on defendant’s failure to testify)
United States v. Velasquez, 881 F.3d 314 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for mistrial denial; curative instruction significance)
United States v. Tang, 718 F.3d 476 (5th Cir.) (oral pronouncement controls over written judgment unless the written judgment merely clarifies)