United States v. Monzel
395 U.S. App. D.C. 162
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Monzel pled guilty to distributing and possessing child pornography; one victim image identified Amy; Amy sought $3,263,758 restitution for losses; district court awarded $5,000 nominal restitution acknowledging harm but declining full amount; government and Amy provided limited evidence tying losses to Monzel; Amy sought mandamus under CVRA §3771(d)(3) and direct appeal; court granted mandamus in part and dismissed direct appeal as improper; remand ordered to recalculate losses attributable to Monzel; questions arose whether CVRA mandamus standard and 72-hour deadline apply, and whether victims may directly appeal restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for CVRA mandamus petitions | Amy seeks ordinary appellate review de novo | Monzel/government urge traditional mandamus standard | Traditional mandamus standard applies |
| Whether the 72-hour deadline is jurisdictional | Deadline imposes mandatory timing rights for Amy | Deadline is not jurisdictional and cannot defeat jurisdiction | 72-hour deadline not jurisdictional; court may decide petition after deadline |
| Whether Amy may directly appeal the restitution order | Amy should be allowed direct appeal of restitution | Crime victims have no direct appeal right; mandamus only | Direct appeal dismissed; mandamus only remedy for Amy |
| Proximate cause requirement for §2259 losses | Monzel caused all of Amy's losses; full amount should be awarded | Losses must be proximately caused by Monzel; cannot be the entire amount | Proximate cause required; may not award full amount without evidentiary link to Monzel |
| Adequacy of government proof on loss amount; remand allowed | Government lacked proof of losses attributable to Monzel | Record shows some harms; exact amount attributable to Monzel unclear | Remand to determine losses attributable to Monzel; district court to redetermine restitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 117 (2010) (72-hour deadline not jurisdictional; similar to 90-day Dolan rule)
- Exportal Ltda. v. United States, 902 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ('shall' is mandatory; timing provisions have legal effect)
- In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370 (6th Cir. 2010) (circuit split on mandamus standard; supports traditional standard)
- In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008) (mandamus standard debate in CVRA context)
- In re Antrobus, 519 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2008) (discusses standard of review for CVRA mandamus)