United States v. Michael Wright
697 F.3d 306
5th Cir.2012Background
- Two cases involve Amy, a victim of child pornography, and restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 for defendants’ possession/distribution of her images.
- Paroline pled guilty to possessing 150–300 child-pornography images including Amy’s and sought restitution under § 2259; district court denied due to lack of proximate-cause proof.
- Wright pled guilty to similar offenses; district court awarded partial restitution and Wright appealed.
- En banc court held that § 2259 imposes a proximate-result requirement only for the catchall § 2259(b)(3)(F) and requires full restitution for the enumerated losses in § 2259(b)(3)(A)-(E).
- Court vacates district court judgments and remands for reconciliation of the full loss award consistent with this ruling.
- The opinion also addresses CVRA rights and mandamus review, and the allocation of restitution among multiple offenders under § 3664(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2259 requires proximate causation for all loss categories. | Amy: proximate-cause not required for A–E; inclusive read of (F) limits only (F). | Paroline/Wright: proximate-cause applies to all losses (A–F). | No; proximate-cause applies only to (F); full losses A–E must be awarded. |
| Whether CVRA provides crime victims a right to direct appeals. | Amy seeks direct appellate review of restitution denial. | Government argues CVRA restricts victims to mandamus, not direct appeal. | CVRA does not grant a general right to direct appeal; mandamus review applies. |
| How to interpret the proximate-cause language and statutory structure (Porto Rico/last antecedent). | Porto Rico/Augmented construction supports applying (F) to all losses. | Reading the proximate language broadly; last-antecedent rule misapplied by Amy. | Text and structure show (F) limits proximate-cause to itself; A–E are not tethered to (F). |
| How restitution should be allocated among multiple offenders under § 3664(h). | Victim entitled to full losses from each responsible offender; joint/several liability possible. | District courts may apportion liability; full amount from one defendant is not always required. | District courts may award full amount against one or apportion among defendants; not strictly one-defendant-for-all. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1920) (read clause applying to all items following when clause follows several words)
- Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (U.S. 2005) (catchall/readiness of last-antecedent with list)
- In re Amy, 591 F.3d 792 (5th Cir. 2009) (prior panel held proximate-cause not required for § 2259 response to Amy)
- In re Amy Unknown, 636 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc reconsideration; retained proximate-cause issues)
- United States v. Paroline, 672 F. Supp. 2d 781 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (district court applied proximate-cause to all losses)
- United States v. Wright, 639 F.3d 679 (5th Cir. 2011) (panel applied Amy’s reading; later en banc reconsideration)
- United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (advocated proximate-cause approach for § 2259)
- United States v. Burgess, 684 F.3d 445 (4th Cir. 2012) (proximate-cause discussions in § 2259 context)
- United States v. Aumais, 656 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2011) (proximate-cause view in § 2259 context)
- Laney v. United States, 189 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1999) (statutory construction in § 2259 context)