United States v. Wright
668 F.3d 776
5th Cir.2011Background
- Wright pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).
- District court ordered Wright to pay $529,661 in restitution to Amy under 18 U.S.C. § 2259.
- Amy’s losses were based on anticipated lifelong counseling and other damages identified in the PSR.
- Wright challenged the restitution amount on proximate causation grounds and the court’s lack of explanation for the amount.
- The government urged broad causation theories; the district court awarded the stated amount without detailed reasoning.
- The court vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright’s appeal waiver was knowingly made. | Wright argues waiver was not knowing given lack of awareness of §2259 restitution scope. | Wright contends he did not knowingly waive appeal regarding restitution beyond proximate-causation limits. | Waiver not knowing/voluntary; appeal not barred. |
| Whether §2259 requires proximate causation for losses beyond the victim definition. | Amy qualifies as a victim; §2259 allows broad losses without further proximate-causation proof. | Wright argues causation is required for the losses awarded. | Panel adopts In re Amy approach; causation treated as satisfied by victim status, but requires remand for reasoned calculation. |
| Whether the district court adequately explained the restitution amount. | Government asserts full losses justify the amount. | District court provided no principled basis to select $529,661. | Remand for a reasoned, record-supported calculation. |
| Whether joint-and-several liability or apportionment governs Wright’s share. | In re Amy supports joint-and-several liability to cover all losses. | District court did not clearly apply joint-and-several or apportionment. | Cannot affirm on either theory; remand to apply a proper framework. |
| Whether the district court must set forth a proportional causation analysis under §2259 and 3664. | Broad causation permissible; no strict apportionment specifics required. | Reasoned analysis tying Wright to specific losses required. | Remand to provide reasoned analysis consistent with proximate-causation standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Amy, 636 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 2011) (holds §2259 does not limit recoverable losses to those proximately caused by the defendant)
- United States v. Norris, 159 F.3d 926 (5th Cir. 1998) (prosecution bears burden for restitution amount under VWPA/MVRA framework)
- United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011) (recognizes proximate-causation requirement under §2259 for losses (Vicky-like context))
- United States v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1999) (requires causal connection between offense and victim harm in restitution)
- United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122 (3d Cir. 1999) (upholds district court’s proximate-causation finding in restitution context)
- Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345 (1920) (canon: apply limiting clause to all items in a list when applicable)