United States v. William Edward Osman
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6244
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Osman pleads guilty to production, distribution, and possession of child pornography; restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 is mandatory.
- Victim A.E., Osman’s approximately one-year-old daughter, was molested on six occasions and images were produced; DHS later recovered extensive child-pornography on Osman’s devices.
- At restitution hearing, the government presented Petrie, a licensed counselor, who forecast A.E.’s future therapy needs across four developmental stages with estimated costs.
- Osman contends Petrie’s estimates are speculative, insufficiently supported, and lacking direct medical evaluation of A.E.
- The district court awarded $16,250 for A.E.’s future counseling costs, concluding Petrie’s testimony was reliable and adequate to prove losses; it denied additional amounts for A.E.’s mother.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews restitution de novo for legality and factual findings for clear error; it also addresses whether future therapy costs may be included under § 2259.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May restitution include future therapy costs under § 2259? | Osman argues future costs are speculative and not proven. | Government contends future therapy costs are recoverable as a reasonable estimate supported by evidence. | Yes; future therapy costs may be included if reasonably estimated and supported by record evidence. |
| Is the amount of future therapy costs properly proven by the record? | Petrie’s estimate relies on limited interactions and could be speculative. | Petrie’s testimony rests on extensive research, experience, and information from the victim’s mother; reliable for estimate. | Yes; the district court reasonably relied on Petrie’s structured, multi-stage estimates. |
| Does Paroline limit the government's recovery of victim losses where multiple offenders are involved? | Paroline limits restitution to losses proximately caused by the defendant's conduct. | Osman’s conduct directly caused the victim’s losses; Paroline is distinguishable as involving multiple possessors. | Paroline is distinguishable; Osman’s conduct proximately caused the losses, supporting restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011) (restitution legality and standard of review in child-pornography cases)
- United States v. Singletary, 649 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2011) (preponderance standard and evidence reliability for loss estimates)
- United States v. Bernardine, 73 F.3d 1078 (11th Cir. 1996) (evidence quality required to support restitution estimates)
- United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711 (11th Cir. 2014) (losss estimation in § 2259 restitution; preponderance standard)
- Laney v. United States, 189 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1999) (allowing future therapy restitution when ascertainable; § 3664 procedures)
- United States v. Danser, 270 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 2001) (restitution for future expenses permissible when based on reasonable estimates)
- United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding 2259 restitution based on estimated future losses with reasonable certainty)