Case ID: f-appx_576/html/0384-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Reynaldo VEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-41319.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 30, 2014.
    Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jose Everardo Chapa, Jr., Yzaguirre & Chapa, McAllen, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Reynaldo Vega was convicted of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A). The trial court sentenced Vega to 210 months’ imprisonment and ordered that Vega was jointly and severally liable for the remainder of a restitution award to one of his victims. On appeal, Vega challenged the sentence of imprisonment but not the order of restitution. We affirmed Vega’s sentence.

The Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Paroline v. United States, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014). In Paroline, the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2259 requires “restitution in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s general losses.” 134 S.Ct. at 1727. Although Vega did not challenge the order of restitution in his initial appeal, the Government has waived any claim of appellate procedural default and requested that this case be remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with Paroline. The parties do not argue that Paroline affected Vega’s sentence beyond the order of restitution.

Accordingly, we VACATE the order of restitution and REMAND for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Paroline.

RESTITUTION ORDER VACATED; REMANDED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.