Vicky v. United States
709 F.3d 712
8th Cir.2013Background
- Fast pled guilty to one count of receiving and distributing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2).
- District court ordered $3,333 restitution to Vicky under 18 U.S.C. § 2259; Vicky is the victim in the images on Fast’s computer.
- Vicky challenged the restitution award by direct appeal and in a mandamus petition under the CVRA; she lacked party status to appeal directly.
- District court previously found proximate cause required for restitution; on remand it held Fast proximately caused $3,333 of losses (A, B, D, E) but not the total claimed losses.
- Vicky asserted total documented losses exceed $1.2 million; she argued all losses enumerated in § 2259(b)(3) should be recoverable, and that the court erred in not awarding the full amount.
- Court granted Fast and the government’s motions to dismiss the direct appeal; denied mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal restitution | Vicky lacks party status to appeal directly. | CVRA does not authorize direct appeals by crime victims; mandamus is the remedy. | Direct appeal dismissed; mandamus only avenue available. |
| Proximate cause for restitution losses | All § 2259(b)(3) losses automatically apply without proximate-cause proof. | Proximate cause is required for each item in § 2259(b)(3)(A)-(E). | Proximate causation required for § 2259(b)(3)(A)-(E); district court properly required it. |
| Full amount of victim's losses under § 2259(b)(1) | Court should award the full documented losses ($952,759.81) attributable to Fast. | Not all losses are proximately caused by Fast; the court should limit to what he proximately caused. | Court did not clearly err in not awarding full $952,759.81; only certain losses proximately caused by Fast were awarded. |
| Suitability of mandamus relief | Mandamus is appropriate to correct clear errors in restitution calculation. | Mandamus is inappropriate when the defendant is not a party for direct appeal; review under mandamus standard is limited. | Mandamus relief denied; standard applied and found not warranted under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc; proximate-cause for § 2259(b)(3)(F) clarified)
- Monzel, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (CVRA mandamus vs. ordinary appeal; standing; mandamus standard)
- Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2010) (crime victims not parties to criminal sentencing; no direct appeal)
- Laraneta, 700 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2012) (proximate cause for § 2259 losses; methodology for apportionment)
- Kearney, 672 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2012) (enumerated losses and proximate-cause requirement; foreseeability)
- Hayes, 135 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 1998) (interpretation of § 2264; proximate cause for certain losses)
- United Sec. Sav. Bank, 394 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2004) (restitution; non-party standing; joint liability considerations)
- In re Antrobus, 519 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2008) (mandamus under CVRA; standard discussion)
- Curtis v. City of Des Moines, 995 F.2d 125 (8th Cir. 1993) (civil standing; intervention principles)