United States v. Mario Ahlazshuna Dillard, 891 F.3d 151

Dillard pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a child (including recording and uploading abuse of Minor Girl A) and one count of receipt/distribution of child pornography; sentenced to 420 months.
Plea agreement contained an extensive appeal waiver and an express agreement to pay restitution for the full scope of his criminal conduct, including losses to Minor Girl A.
At sentencing the Government sought restitution for Minor Girl A (contact victim) and seven non-contact victims whose images Dillard possessed/distributed; Minor Girl A’s counselor requested $3,590 but the Government sought $7,180.
The district court awarded Minor Girl A $100,000 in restitution, finding long-term psychological harms and treating $100,000 as conservative in light of average lifetime harms in similar cases.
The district court denied restitution entirely to the seven non-contact victims, reasoning the Government failed to prove causation connecting Dillard to their harms and that the proposed formula for apportionment was speculative; the court said it needed at minimum data on restitution awards and collections in other cases.
Both sides appealed: Dillard challenged the $100,000 award; the Government appealed the denial of restitution to non-contact victims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dillard can appeal the $100,000 restitution to Minor Girl A despite an appeal waiver	Dillard: §2259 limits restitution to proven losses and record only shows $3,590—$100,000 unsupported	Government: appeal barred by valid, knowing appeal waiver that covers sentence/restitution	Appeal dismissed: waiver valid; court had statutory authority under §2259 to award $100,000, so claim falls within waiver
Whether the district court erred by denying restitution to non-contact victims	Government: statute (§2259) mandates restitution; Paroline allows apportionment based on defendant’s relative role even when precise causation is impossible	Dillard: (implied) lack of direct causal nexus; court required stricter causation proof	Vacated & remanded: district court misapplied Paroline by demanding victim awareness and extra data and by refusing to exercise discretion to apportion a non-nominal award; must re-determine amounts consistent with Paroline

United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217 (4th Cir. 2014) (discusses enforceability and scope of appeal waivers)
United States v. Cohen, 459 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes when a restitution challenge may survive an appeal waiver)
Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (Supreme Court: restitution under §2259 requires proximate causation; where individual causation is impractical, courts should apportion restitution consistent with defendant’s relative role)
United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for restitution orders)