United States v. Palmer, 643 F.3d 1060

Palmer and Barkau operated an illicit BDSM business involving the victim, Palmer's daughter, beginning when she was 12 and later selling her services for years.
The child was trained as a dominatrix and subjected to sexual abuse, resulting in ongoing psychological harm and the potential for future treatment costs.
All defendants pled guilty to one count of commercial sex trafficking of a child under plea agreements that included restitution to the victim.
The district court ordered Palmer to pay $200,000 in restitution jointly and severally with Barkau, plus a special condition to fund counseling expenses from a dedicated account.
The government appealed the special condition and the district court’s alternative restitution orders; Palmer cross-appealed on the same restitution issues; Barkau’s case mirrored Palmer’s restitution order.
The court ultimately affirmed the $200,000 restitution award, vacated the special condition and alternative restitution orders, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the special restitution condition complied with MVRA	Palmer argued the special condition violated MVRA by not imposing specified intervals.	Palmer contends the special condition improperly creates contingent, non-specified intervals for payment.	Special condition vacated as plain error; MVRA requires specified intervals.
Whether the district court could impose alternative restitution orders	The government argued the alternative orders were enforceable as part of the appeal.	Palmer/Barkau contended the alternatives encroached on the government’s appellate rights and were invalid.	Alternative restitution orders vacated as unenforceable.
Whether the district court properly fixed the child’s restitution at $200,000	Government argued future treatment costs could be substantial and supported by expert testimony.	Defendants argued the estimate was speculative given lack of direct interview and victim variability.	The district court’s $200,000 restitution for psychological treatment was not clearly erroneous.
Whether restitution must be paid for future psychiatric/medical costs	MVRA requires restitution for reasonable future treatment costs as part of the victim’s losses.	Defendants contended the record did not prove specific future medical costs.	Court declined to award future psychiatric/medical costs beyond the $200,000, upholding part of the restitution award.

Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) (child rape causes lasting psychological impact; informs harm assessment)
Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) ( Due process and statutory interpretation principles cited)
Bayless v. Estelle, 583 F.2d 730 (5th Cir.1978) (right to appeal and enforceability of appellate decisions)
United States v. Mancini, 624 F.3d 879 (8th Cir.2010) (standards for reviewing special conditions of restitution)
United States v. Boesen, 541 F.3d 838 (8th Cir.2008) (reasonableness of future-cost estimates for restitution)