United States v. Shawn Crawford
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Gamble and Crawford were convicted of child pornography offenses and ordered restitution over $1,000,000 to a victim identified as Vicky under §2259.
- Restitution under §2259 is mandatory for ‘the full amount of the victim’s losses’ and includes future costs where proximately caused.
- The district courts did not require proof of proximate causation between losses and the defendants’ offenses, contrary to this circuit’s precedent.
- Evidence for Vicky’s losses included medical/psychological care, therapy, lost income, occupational counseling, and attorneys’ fees.
- Both defendants challenged restitution; Gamble also challenged his within-Guidelines prison sentence; district court decisions were appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate causation required for §2259 losses | Gamble and Crawford contend no proximate-cause proof needed for all listed losses. | Gamble and Crawford contend proximate cause is not required for non-catchall losses. | proximate cause required for §2259 losses; remand for causation analysis |
| Joint and several liability vs. apportionment | Vicky should receive full losses from each defendant; no apportionment. | Liability should be apportioned among numerous defendants due to multiple causes. | apportionment appropriate; not every defendant bears full loss; framework for allocation permitted |
| Remand scope for restitution on remand | District courts should apply the Government’s allocation framework de novo. | Court should reassess factual causation and allocation more flexibly. | remand for de novo proceedings with guidance on causation and allocation |
| Gamble’s sentence reasonableness | Sentence within Guidelines should be sustained given risk and obligations. | Potential downward variance warranted by cooperation and differences from similar cases. | within-Guidelines sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2012) (proximate cause required for §2259 losses; catchall (F)(3)(F) requires causation)
- United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (proximate cause and the scope of restitution in aggregate harm)
- United States v. Laraneta, 700 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2012) (aggregate causation and proximate-cause discussions in restitution)
- United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2011) (causation language in §2259 definitions and losses)
- United States v. Kearney, 672 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2012) (causation for restitution in aggregate contexts)
- Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345 (Supreme Court 1920) (use of proximate-cause concepts in statutory construction)