United States v. Robert White, 667 F. App'x 893

Defendant Robert Lewis White pleaded guilty to distributing and receiving child pornography and was ordered to pay restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259.
The district court awarded restitution covering the victim’s medical and counseling costs and attorneys’ fees for harms proximately caused by White’s offense.
White challenged the restitution order on appeal, arguing future counseling costs were too speculative because the victim had not begun treatment.
White also argued the district court improperly considered his economic circumstances in setting restitution and contested the attorneys’ fees portion of the award.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo legal questions about restitution, for abuse of discretion as to amount, and for clear error as to underlying factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can future medical/counseling costs be awarded before victim begins treatment?	Government: § 2259 permits estimating future costs to compensate long-term effects.	White: Future costs are too speculative because treatment has not started.	Court: Future costs may be estimated with reasonable certainty and awarded prior to treatment.
Did the district court improperly consider White’s economic circumstances?	Government: Restitution awarded based on victim’s total losses.	White: Court made a passing reference to his finances, violating § 2259 and § 3664.	Court: Any reference was harmless; award followed victim’s loss amount and did not violate statutes.
Were attorneys’ fees properly awarded where defendant did not object below?	Government: Fees reflect time and expense of victim’s counsel; award appropriate.	White: Challenges amount/calculation not raised below (so plain error review).	Court: Under plain-error review, the fee award was not plainly erroneous.

United States v. Galan, 804 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir. 2015) (standards for appellate review of restitution orders)
Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (restitution requires proximate causation between offense and victim’s losses)
United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2011) (government must provide sufficient evidence to estimate restitution with reasonable certainty)
United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2007) (same: reasonable certainty standard for restitution estimates)
United States v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1999) (§ 2259 allows inclusion of future counseling expenses in restitution)
United States v. Fu Sheng Kuo, 620 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review where defendant failed to object below)