United States v. Wright
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8137
5th Cir.2011Background
- Wright pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).
- District court ordered Wright to pay $529,661 restitution to Amy under § 2259; Wright challenged causation and amount.
- PSR identified 21 identifiable children in Wright’s images, including Amy; Amy submitted a victim impact statement and expert report.
- PSR proposed $3,367,854 restitution based on Amy’s total losses, including future counseling and lost income; Wright objected to causation.
- District court awarded $529,661, without detailed reasoning, and ordered concurrent payment with other defendants and monthly installments.
- We vacate the restitution order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the appeal waiver | Wright lacked knowing consent to waive appeal on restitution. | Wright knowingly waived appeal except for punishment exceeding the maximum; restitution is attached to punishment. | Appeal waiver not knowing or voluntary; Wright may appeal. |
| Whether § 2259 requires proximate causation for losses | Wright argued proximate causation is required for Amy’s losses. | Government contends broad causation permissible; district court has discretion. | Consistent with In re Amy, § 2259 permits restitution without showing personal proximate causation for each loss; victim status suffices for recovery, but remand required for reasoning. |
| Adequacy of district court’s reasoning on amount | Court must provide reasoned analysis tying award to losses caused by Wright. | Discretion allows broad determination of losses and apportionment. | Trial court failed to explain basis for $529,661; vacate and remand for explicit, record-supported reasoning. |
| Joint and several liability vs. apportionment | District court may impose joint and several liability or fraction attributable to Wright. | Authority supports joint and several liability or apportionment under 3664(h) and In re Amy. | Cannot affirm on joint/several basis or fraction without clearer reasoning; remand with explicit findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Amy, 636 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 2011) (confirms § 2259 does not limit losses to proximate causation; defines victim and allowance of broader recovery)
- McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011) (proximate causation required for losses; supports Wright's burden)
- Baxter, 394 Fed.Appx. 377 (9th Cir. 2010) (awarded $3,000 for Vicky's losses; proximate causation considered)
- Crandon, 173 F.3d 122 (3d Cir. 1999) (proximate cause in restitution for receiving child pornography)
- Laney, 189 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1999) (restitution requires causal connection between offense and victim’s harm)
- Norris, 159 F.3d 926 (5th Cir. 1998) (recognizes serious harms from distribution/possession of images; supports victim status)
- Monzel, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (concurrence advocating proximate causation approach consistent with other circuits)
- Paroline v. United States, 672 F. Supp. 2d 781 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (district ruling on causation under § 2259 cited by multiple circuits)
- Hardy, 707 F. Supp. 2d 597 (W.D. Pa. 2010) (district court applying proximate causation argument to restitution)
- Crandon, 173 F.3d 122 (3d Cir. 1999) (proximate cause in restitution for receiving child pornography)