5th Circuit: Restitution to child porn victim not limited by proximate causation

U.S. v. Wright, No. 09-31215 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2011)

Excerpts:

Before KING, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Michael Wright pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2259, the district court ordered Wright to pay $529,661 in restitution to one of the children, “Amy,” portrayed in some of the images Wright possessed. Wright
appeals this restitution order, arguing that § 2259 includes a proximate causation requirement and that the restitution order exceeds the amount of Amy’s losses that his offense caused. Because we cannot discern from the record any supportable rationale for the district court’s order of $529,661, we vacate the restitution order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion . . .

This appeal presents issues related to the amount of restitution that a district court may order a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography to pay to one of the children depicted in the images . . . As explained further below, the recent In re Amy panel opinion rejected the causation arguments made by Wright, holding that § 2259 does not limit Amy’s recoverable losses to those proximately caused by a defendant’s offense. See In re Amy, No. 09-41238, slip op. at 12. We evaluate Wright’s appeal under this precedent . . . Applying the authority of In re Amy to Wright’s appeal, we conclude that Amy is eligible for restitution as a “victim” of Wright’s crime of possessing
images of her abuse pursuant to § 2259(c) and that the other provisions of §2259, including § 2259(b)(3)(F), do not require additional proof of a causal connection between Wright’s offense conduct and Amy’s recoverable losses . . .

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I write separately to express my disagreement with the recent holding by the In re Amy panel that § 2259 does not limit the victim’s recoverable losses to those proximately caused by the defendant’s offense and to urge the court to grant en banc review of that decision . . . Finally, I note that the District of Columbia Circuit very recently issued a thorough, well-reasoned opinion that is consistent with this special concurrence . . .

_________________

CONTRAST:

D.C. Circuit: Child Pornography Victim Owed More Restitution