Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cr-00293/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cr-00293-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Eric Scheidt
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES ERIC SCHEIDT, )

)

Defendant. )

)

____________________________________)

1: 07-CR-00293 AWI

ORDER DIRECTING

DEFENDANT TO PAY

RESTITUTION

BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2009, Defendant James Eric Scheidt pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252(a)(2) – Receipt or Distribution of Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of Minors

(“receipt/distribution of child pornography”). On January 4, 2010, the court sentenced Defendant

Scheidt to 324 months custody in the Bureau of Prisons, supervised release for a term of life, and

a $100 penalty assessment.

Two victims of child pornography have requested restitution from Defendant Scheidt. 

At issue is whether the court must award restitution and the amount of restitution the court

should award to the victims under 18 U.S.C. § 2259.

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cr-00293-AWI Document 49 Filed 01/11/10 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

LEGAL STANDARD

A restitution order is reviewed for abuse of discretion if it is within the bounds of the

statutory framework. United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 555 (9 Cir. 2008); United States th

v. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9 Cir. 2004); United States v. Hackett, 311 F.3d 989, 991 (9

th th

Cir. 2002). Factual findings supporting an order of restitution are reviewed for clear error. 

Waknine, 543 F.3d at 555; Gordon, 393 F.3d at 1051. The legality of an order of restitution is

reviewed de novo. Waknine, 543 F.3d at 555; Gordon, 393 F.3d at 1051.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3664, the court must resolve any dispute as to the proper amount of

restitution by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e); United States v. Waknine,

543 F.3d 546, 556 (9 Cir. 2008). The government bears the burden of proving: (1) that a person th

or entity is a victim for purposes of restitution; and (2) the amount of the loss. Waknine, 543 F.

3d at 556; United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1075 (9 Cir. 2008); see also 18 U.S.C. § th

3664(e). While the court is not required to make explicit findings to justify its restitution order,

the Ninth Circuit has found that specific findings of fact are necessary at times and the district

court must set forth an explanation of its reasoning, supported by the record, when a dispute

arises as to the proper amount of restitution. Waknine, 543 F. 3d at 556. 

DISCUSSION

The victims seek restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, which specifically governs

restitution in receipt/distribution of child pornography cases under Section 2252(a)(2). Section

2259 provides as follows:

(a) In general.--Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any

other civil or criminal penalty authorized by law, the court shall order restitution

for any offense under this chapter.

(b) Scope and nature of order.--

(1) Directions.--The order of restitution under this section shall direct the

defendant to pay the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the

full amount of the victim's losses as determined by the court pursuant to

paragraph (2). 

(2) Enforcement.--An order of restitution under this section shall be

issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664 in the same manner

as an order under section 3663A. 

Case 1:07-cr-00293-AWI Document 49 Filed 01/11/10 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term “full amount of

the victim's losses” includes any costs incurred by the victim for--

(A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or

psychological care; 

(B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation; 

(C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care

expenses; 

(D) lost income; 

(E) attorneys' fees, as well as other costs incurred; and 

(F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of

the offense. 

(4) Order mandatory.--(A) The issuance of a restitution order under this

section is mandatory. 

(B) A court may not decline to issue an order under this section because

of--

(i) the economic circumstances of the defendant; or 

(ii) the fact that a victim has, or is entitled to, receive compensation

for his or her injuries from the proceeds of insurance or any other

source. 

(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term “victim” means the

individual harmed as a result of a commission of a crime under this chapter,

including, in the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent,

incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or representative of the

victim's estate, another family member, or any other person appointed as suitable

by the court, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such representative

or guardian.

18 U.S.C. § 2259.

A. Mandatory Nature of Restitution

From the statute it is clear that restitution is mandatory for any offense in the chapter,

including all offenses under Section 2252, such as receipt/distribution of child pornography. 

Given that the language of Section 2259 reads: “The issuance of a restitution order under this

section is mandatory”, the court is required to award restitution. See 18 U.S.C. §

2259(b)(4)(A). 

B. Victims of Defendant Scheidt’s Conduct

The court has been provided evidence that some of the images Defendant Scheidt

possessed were of Victim Vicky and Victim Amy. These facts are not disputed. What is in

dispute is whether Victim Vicky and/or Victim Any are victims of Defendant Scheidt’s

Case 1:07-cr-00293-AWI Document 49 Filed 01/11/10 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

receipt/distribution, and if they are, the amount of losses incurred by them as a result of

Defendant Scheidt’s receipt/distribution.

A finding that both Victim Vicky and Victim Amy are the victims in the crime Defendant

Scheidt was convicted of is supported by case law. In 1982 the Supreme Court upheld child

pornography laws, making the following findings:

We shall not second-guess this legislative judgment. Respondent has not

intimated that we do so. Suffice it to say that virtually all of the States and the

United States have passed legislation proscribing the production of or otherwise

combating “child pornography.” The legislative judgment, as well as the judgment

found in the relevant literature, is that the use of children as subjects of

pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental

health of the child. That judgment, we think, easily passes muster under the First

Amendment.

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 758 (1982). Citing numerous scientific studies, the Supreme

Court further found:

“[T]he use of children as ... subjects of pornographic materials is very harmful to

both the children and the society as a whole.” S.Rep.No. 95-438, p. 5 (1977),

U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, p. 42. It has been found that sexually

exploited children are unable to develop healthy affectionate relationships in later

life, have sexual dysfunctions, and have a tendency to become sexual abusers as

adults. Sexual molestation by adults is often involved in the production of child

sexual performances. When such performances are recorded and distributed, the

child's privacy interests are also invaded. 

. . . .

“[P]ornography poses an even greater threat to the child victim than does sexual

abuse or prostitution. Because the child's actions are reduced to a recording, the

pornography may haunt him in future years, long after the original misdeed took

place. A child who has posed for a camera must go through life knowing that the

recording is circulating within the mass distribution system for child

pornography.”

Ferber, 548 U.S. at 758 n.9 & 759 n.10 (internal cites to scholarly journals omitted).

The Ninth Circuit more recently discussed who the “victim” is in a child pornography

case. In United States v. Boos, 127 F.3d 1207 (9 Cir. 1997), the defendant was convicted of th

conspiracy to distribute or to receive child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and distribution of

child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). At issue was the definition of “victim” for

purposes of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Ninth Circuit found:

Case 1:07-cr-00293-AWI Document 49 Filed 01/11/10 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

. . . with regard to the distribution of child pornography, the “person[s] who [are]

directly and most seriously affected,” and are “therefore identifiable as the

victim[s],” are the children who perform the pornographic acts.

Moreover, quite unlike the drug and immigration offenses mentioned in

the Note-which are “victimless” crimes in the sense that the harm that they

produce is spread evenly throughout society-the harm caused by the distribution of

child pornography is concentrated. It is visited upon a single individual or discrete

group of individuals, namely, the child or children used in the production of the

pornographic material. The child pornographer simply cannot be analogized to the

garden-variety drug user convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) of possessing a

controlled substance, who is, practically speaking, his own victim. The child

pornographer victimizes not himself, but children.

Boos, 127 F.3d at 1210. After reviewing both the Sentencing Guidelines’ and a dictionary’s

definitions of “victim”, the Ninth Circuit stated that “it seems to us scarcely debatable that the

children depicted – many as young as 5 years old – were the primary “victims” of Boos's criminal

conduct”. Id. The Ninth Circuit concluded that: “the legislative history, when viewed in its

entirety, confirms the conclusion that the primary “victims” that Congress sought to protect by

enacting § 2252 were, in fact, the children involved in the production of pornography.” Boos,

127 F.3d at 1211. Other Circuits have reached similar results. See, e.g., United States v.

Sherman 268 F.3d 539, 544 (7 Cir. 2001) (declining to draw any distinction between the crime th

of producing child pornography and the crimes of distributing or receiving child pornography in

determining who was the primary or direct victim of the crime); United States v. Tillmon, 195

F.3d 640, 643 (11 Cir. 1999) (stating that legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 makes clear th

the primary objective of the statute is to lessen harm suffered by children who are involved);

United States v. Norris, 159 F.3d 926, 930 (5 Cir. 1998)(finding that even passive consumer th

who merely receives or possesses the images directly contributes to continuing victimization and

“the mere existence of child pornography represents an invasion of the privacy of the child

depicted”); United States v. Hibbler, 159 F.3d 233, 236-37 (6 Cir. 1998) (“children depicted in th

the pornography possessed and shipped by a defendant are the primary victims of the crimes of

possession and distribution”).

///

Case 1:07-cr-00293-AWI Document 49 Filed 01/11/10 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

The court has before it evidence that Victim Vicky has between $126,365 to $ 128,005 in

special damages for medical, psychological, and psychiatric expenses for care she will receive. 

The court has before it evidence that Victim Amy has current and future damages of $3,367,854

or $2,855,173, plus $16,980 in witness fees, attorney’s fees, and costs. The court has received

evidence that both victims have been harmed by the people who have viewed their images. 

Given the case authority and the specific evidence provided by the victims, it has been shown

that a defendant possessing Victim Vicky’s and Victim Amy’s images has caused harm to them.

C. Causation

From the case law it is clear that the court must find causation before awarding a

restitution amount in favor of Victim Vicky and Victim Amy. Section 2259 provides that the

victim must have been “harmed as a result of the commission of a crime under this chapter”,

such as Section 2252. See 18 U.S.C. § 2259(c). The Ninth Circuit has interpreted Section 2252

to require that there be a “causal connection between the offense of conviction and the victim's

harm.” United States v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954, 965 (9 Cir. 1999). However, neither the Ninth th

Circuit nor other circuits addressing restitution orders under Section 2259 have imposed a

requirement of causation approaching mathematical precision. United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d

1154, 1160 (9 Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit “will uphold an award of restitution under Section th

2259 if the district court is able to estimate, based upon facts in the record, the amount of victim's

loss with some reasonable certainty.” Id.

The problem in this case is with the government’s ability to prove the causal connection

between Defendant Scheidt’s receipt/distribution of child pornography and the amount of harm

he caused to these victims. The only monetary figure provided to the court is the total amount

of the victims’ harm, not the harm Defendant Scheidt caused a particular victim. Section 2259

leaves the court in a legal quandary: The court must award restitution and the government must

show the harm caused by Defendant Scheidt, but it is difficult to determine the amount of harm

caused by Defendant Scheidt. 

Case 1:07-cr-00293-AWI Document 49 Filed 01/11/10 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Prior to July 27, 2006, the last sentence in Section 2255(a) read: “Any person as

1

described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than

$50,000 in value.” Under the civil statute, the minimum restitution amount for any violation of

Section 2252 is $150,000 for violations occurring after July 27, 2006 and $50,000 for violations

occurring prior to $50,000. 

7

In resolving the difficult determination before the court, the court has reviewed related

laws concerning receipt/distribution of child pornography. The closest Congress has come to

providing a formula for determining restitution amounts is in the civil remedies Congress made

available to victims of Section 2252 violations. Title 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provides a civil remedy

for personal injuries caused by sexual exploitation of children, including violations of Section

2252. Section 2255 provides:

(a) In general.--Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of

section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or

2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation,

regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue

in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual

damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable

attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed

to have sustained damages of no less than $150,000 in value.

18 U.S.C.A. § 2255(a). In a suit brought under Section 2255 it appears the victim does not have

to prove the exact amount of damage a specific defendant caused the victim. Section 2255

requires the victim to show she suffered personal injury. Having shown an injury, the victim

recovers the actual damages she sustains. Apparently realizing that the victim will have a

difficult time proving the exact amount of damage a particular possessor or distributor has

caused, Congress has set forth the amount of damages: Any victim that has suffered personal

injury as a result of the violation, including Section 2252 violations, “shall be deemed to have

sustained damages of no less than $150,00 in value”. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2255(a) (emphasis

added).

1

Based on Congress’s decision that a victim is damaged a minimum of $150,000 for any

violation of Section 2252, the court has been given some guidance on the amount Congress

believes is the minimal amount a damages stemming from child pornography. Because

Case 1:07-cr-00293-AWI Document 49 Filed 01/11/10 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

Congress has already determined that $150,000 is the deemed damage amount for any Section

2252 violation, the court finds that any restitution amount under $150,000 will generally be

reasonable. 

The court declines to award the full amount of $150,000 in restitution to a child

pornography victim for several reasons. The ordinary meaning given to the word “restitution” is

to restore someone to the position she occupied before a particular event. Hughey v. United

States, 495 U.S. 411, 416 (1990). “The purpose of restitution is to make the victims whole while

the Sentencing Guidelines serve a punitive purpose.” United States v. Crandall, 525 F.3d 907,

916 (9 Cir. 2008); United States v. Brock-Davis, 504 F.3d 991, 998 (9 Cir. 2007). While th th

Section 2259 concerns restitution, Section 2255 discusses damages. Restitution and the total

amount of damages are not always the same thing. See, e.g., United States v. Barnette, 10 F.3d

1553, 1556 (11th Cir.1994); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 344; Restatement of

Restitution, chapter 8, topic 2, at 595-96. In addition, Section 2255 provides for deemed

damages in the amount of $150,000 for violations ranging from possession of child pornography

in violation of Section 2252(a)(4)(B) to selling children for purposes of sexually explicit conduct

in violation of Section 2251A and to sexual abuse in violation of Section 2242 and Section 2243. 

 The broad range of crimes for which $150,000 is the deemed damages lends support to a finding

that a defendant who received/distributed child pornography caused the victim less than

$150,000 in harm. 

The court finds that $3,000 should be awarded as restitution in favor of Victim Vicky and

$3,000 should be awarded as restitution in favor of Victim Amy. This amount is two percent of

the $150,000 amount reflected in Section 2255. Given the high amount of the deemed damages

in Section 2255, the court finds an amount less than $3,000 inconsistent with Congress’s findings

on the harm to children victims of child pornography. At the same time, the court finds $3,000

is a level of restitution that the court is confident is somewhat less than the actual harm this

particular defendant caused each victim, resolving any due process concerns.

Case 1:07-cr-00293-AWI Document 49 Filed 01/11/10 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

D. Windfall to the Victims

An argument might be raised that ordering restitution to a victim will eventually result in

a windfall to some victims. It is true Victim Vicky and Victim Amy may receive restitution

orders requiring numerous defendants to pay them restitution. Theoretically, at some point, it is

possible the victims will obtain more money in restitution than their actual harm. Section

2256(b)(4)(B) provides that the court may not decline to issue an order of restitution because the

victim has or is entitled to receive compensation for her injuries from the proceeds of insurance

or any other source. The court may not decline to order restitution based on the fact the victim

has or is entitled to receive compensation from “any other source”. “[A]ny other source” would

include restitution from defendants in other cases. Regardless, this court is not currently faced

with the situation of a victim asking for restitution when other defendants around the country

have already paid her more than her actual harm. Thus, the court finds any “windfall”

arguments to be unpersuasive.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Victim Amy is entitled to restitution in the amount of $3,000;

2. Victim Vicky is entitled to restitution in the amount of $3,000; and

3. The judgment in this action SHALL reflect these restitution amounts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cr-00293-AWI Document 49 Filed 01/11/10 Page 9 of 9