United States v. Miner, 617 F. App'x 102

Defendant Gary Miner pled guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Restitution of $5,065 was ordered to two victims ("J_Blonde" and "Andy").
The restitution award was calculated by the district court using the median of prior restitution awards previously made to those victims ($2,000 to J_Blonde; $3,065 to Andy).
Miner challenged only the restitution amount and the timing of payment on appeal.
The district court found the victims’ claimed general losses (therapy, lost income) were sufficiently disaggregated from the original abuse to meet Paroline’s proximate-causation requirement.
The court also considered Miner’s relative role in the causal process and adopted the median-award approach after conducting independent fact-finding and rejecting some government/victim requests as excessive.
The Second Circuit affirmed the restitution amounts but vacated the requirement of immediate payment and remanded for a payment schedule under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court failed to disaggregate losses attributable to initial abuse from ongoing trafficking (Paroline proximate causation)	Government: district court properly found victims’ general losses sufficiently disaggregated from original abuse	Miner: district court relied on reports that mixed original abuse and ongoing trafficking and didn’t quantify contributions	Affirmed — district court adequately disaggregated and Paroline does not require more detailed accounting
Whether district court properly accounted for Miner’s relative role in victims’ general losses	Government: restitution based on reasoned methodology reflecting relative role	Miner: awards overstate his causal contribution	Affirmed — court reasonably assessed relative role and did not abuse discretion
Whether using the median of prior awards is an appropriate method for setting restitution	Government/victims: prior awards are permissible comparators	Miner: methodology improper or arbitrary	Affirmed — median-of-awards was reasonable here given district court’s factfinding and discretion
Whether restitution must be paid immediately or under a payment schedule	Government: immediate payment appropriate	Miner: indigent; immediate payment constitutes plain error; should be scheduled	Vacated in part — immediate-payment requirement was plain error; remanded to impose payment schedule under § 3664(f)(2)

Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (proximate-causation and defendant's relative role in restitution for child-pornography victims)
United States v. Paul, 634 F.3d 668 (2d Cir. 2011) (deferential standard of review for restitution orders)
United States v. Pearson, 570 F.3d 480 (2d Cir. 2009) (restitution review standard)
United States v. Kearney, 672 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2012) (permitting consideration of restitution awards in other cases as comparators)
United States v. Mammedov, [citation="304 F. App'x 922"] (2d Cir. 2008) (plain error where immediate restitution ordered despite defendant's indigence)