Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-41238/USCOURTS-ca5-09-41238-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amy Unknown
Petitioner

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09–41238

In re: AMY UNKNOWN,

Petitioner

Consolidated with 09–41254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE,

Defendant-Appellee

v.

AMY UNKNOWN, 

Movant-Appellant

No. 09–31215

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL WRIGHT

Defendant-Appellant

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 10, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 09-41238 Document: 00512658314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
No. 09–41238

c/w No. 09–41254

No. 09–31215

Appeals from the United States District Courts

for the Eastern District of Texas

and the Eastern District of Louisiana

ON REMAND FROM

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, 

GARZA, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, 

HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, the en banc court affirmed the Eastern 

District of Louisiana’s judgment in United States v. Wright, No. 09–CR–103 

(E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2009), and vacated the Eastern District of Texas’s judgment 

in United States v. Paroline, 672 F.Supp.2d 781 (E.D. Tex. 2009). In re Amy 

Unknown, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The Supreme Court 

subsequently vacated our judgment and remanded, holding 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.” 

Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 1727 (2014). Likewise, in Wright v. 

United States, 134 S. Ct 1933 (2014), the Court vacated our judgment in light 

of Paroline.

* Judge Higginson is recused and did not participate in any aspect of the en banc 

rehearing. Judge Costa did not participate in the en banc rehearing or in this decision.

2

 

 Case: 09-41238 Document: 00512658314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
No. 09–41238

c/w No. 09–41254

No. 09–31215

Accordingly, we VACATE the restitution order of the Eastern District of 

Texas, VACATE the restitution order of the Eastern District of Louisiana, and 

REMAND for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.1

1 Michael Wright’s Motion to Remand in No. 09-31215 is denied as moot. 

3

 

 Case: 09-41238 Document: 00512658314 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2014