F OR P UB LIC AT ION 

### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

I N RE : A MY & V I CKY , Ch ild Por no g ra phy Vi c tim s.

A MY & V I CKY , Child P ornog raphy Vi c tim s, Pe tit ion e rs ,

v. U NI TED S T A T ES D I S TR I C T C O U RT F OR THE E AS TER N D I S TR I C T OF C A LIF O R N IA , S AC R AME NT O , Respondent , J OS EP H C A N T RE LLE ,

De fe nd an t-Re al Par ty

in In te re st , U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plain tif f-Re al Par ty

in In te re st

. No. 13-71486

D.C. No. 2:11-cr- 00542- GEB -1

OPI NI ON

Petition for Writ of Manda mus to the United States District Court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Ca lif or nia Gar land E. B urre ll, J r., Senior District Judge, Pre sidingI N RE : A MY & V I CKY 2

T h e p anel una n i mou s l y c on cl u des t h i s c as e i s s u i t abl e f or de ci s i on *
w itho u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. See Fed

. R

. A p p
. P

. 34 (a)( 2 ).
T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. Submit ted May

1, 2013 *
Filed Ma y 3, 2013
Be fore : Stephen S. Trott, Ri char d A. Paez, and Jac qu e lin e H. Nguy e n, Cir c uit Judg e s. Per Curiam Opinion

SUMMAR

Y **

Crim inal L aw A motions pane l de nied a petition for wr it of mandamus brough t by

child pornog raphy

victims challeng ing the met ho do logy

a pp lie d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

on re mand in deter mining the a

mount of restitution. The pa nel held that the district court did not commit leg al err or or a buse its discretion in decliningto impos e j oint and sever al liability

on the def

endant f or all of their l o s s es. The pa ne l a lso no te d th a t the re is no i nte rv e nin g highe r a uth or ity that is clear ly

irrec oncilab l e with United States v. Kenne dy , 543 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2011), which there fore rema ins b i n d i n g.I N RE : A MY & V I CKY 3 CO UN SEL Paul Cassell, Appellate Clinic, S.J

. Quinney College of L aw a t th e Un ive rs ity

of Utah, S alt L ake City , U tah; Jame s R. Marsh, Mar sh L aw Firm, PL L C, W hite Plains, New York; and Caro l L

. Hepbur

n, Carol L . Hepbur

n PS, S eattle, Was hin g ton , f

or Pe tit ion e rs
. B e nja min B . Wa g ner, Un ite d St a te s A tto rn e y , a nd Camil Skipper, Assistant United States Attorney , Offic e of the United States Attorney , Sacra mento, California, for

PlaintiffRe a l Part y in I nte re st. Kre sta Nora Da ly , Ba

rth Tozer & Daly , L L P, Sacrame nto, Ca lif or nia , f or De fe nd ant- Re a l Part

y in I nte re st.

OP IN ION
PER CU RIAM : Amy and Vicky , child p o rn o g raphy victims, petiti on for a wr it o f mand amus purs ua nt t o 1 8 U .S. C. § 37 71 , th e Cr ime Victims Rights Act (“ CVRA”). F inding no leg al er ror or abuse of discretion, we deny

the petition. Th is m a tte r w a s p re vio us ly be fo re the c ourt in a CV RA petition that challeng ed the district co u rt ’s denial of restitution to petitioners “Amy ” and “ Vicky .” See I n re: Am y ( “Am yI” ) , 710 F.3d 985, 986 ( 9th C i r. 2013) ( per c uriam). We denied peti t i o n ers’ reque st to overrule United States v. Kennedy , 64 3 F .3 d 1 25 1 ( 9th Cir . 2 01 1) , n oti ngthat Kennedy rema ins b i n d i ng on this court in the absenc e of inter vening highe r a uth or ity that is c le arl y ir

re c on c ila ble wi th o ur

c ir c uitI N RE : A MY & V I CKY 4
prec edent. 710 F .3d at 9 8 7. Kennedy re qu ir e s a c ourt to

“ ide nti fy a c a us a l c onne c tio n b e tw e e n th e de fe nd ant’ s o ff e ns e conduct a nd the victim’s specific losses” bef ore a war ding res t itution pursuant to 18 U.S.C . § 2259. 643 F.3d at 1262. The Amy I court concluded, however, that “the district cour t abused its discre tion in refusing to order a ny restit u t i o n,” fi nd ingpe tit ion e rs ha d “ pr ov ide d s uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to e sta bli sha c a us a l c onne c tion b e tw e e n d e fe nd ant’ s o ff e ns e and petitioners’ losses.” 710 F

. 3 d at 987. The c ourt re mand e d f

or fu rt he r p ro c e e dings to d e te rm ine the amou nts of re stitut ion to be awa

rded to Amy

and Vicky

. Id.
On re mand, the district cour t adopted the a

pproac h for de te rm ini ngre sti tut ion

su g g e ste d by

the Sixth C ir c uit

in Un ite d S tates v . G am ble , 709 F.3d 541, 553–54 ( 6th Cir. 2013). Specific ally , the di strict court de termined the r eleva nt “pool” of eac h victim’s provable losses by excluding any losses incurre d prior to the offe nse date, then divi d ed that po ol o f l os se s b y

the numbe r o f s tand ingre sti tu ti on or de rs
. Utiliz ing that methodology , the district court a war ded pe tit ion e r A my

$1 7, 30 7. 44 and pe tit ion e r V ic ky $2 ,8 81 .0 5 in restitution. Petit ioners cha lleng e the district cour t’s order

. In revie wing a CVRA ma ndamus petition, th i s court “must issue the writ whene ver w e find that the district court’s order ref lects an abuse of discre tion or leg al er ror,” and nee d not bal an ce t he fa ctors outlined in Ba um an v . U .S . D ist

. Cou rt , 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 ( 9th Cir. 1977), in deciding th e s e p e ti tions. Ke nn a v . U .S . D ist . Co ur t , 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioners first contend that the district court applied an imp ro pe r me tho do logy

fo r d e te rm ini ngthe a pp ro pr iate amou nt of res tit

uti on to b e awa

rd e d. B e c a

us e 18 U. S.C.I N RE : A MY & V I CKY 5 § 2 2 5 9 ( b ) ( 1 ) d i r e c t s th a tan“ o r d e r o f r e s t i tu t i o nun d e r

thi s se c tio n s ha ll d ir e c t th e de fe nd ant t o pa y the vic tim

. . . the fu ll amount of the victim’s losses,” petitioners asser t that the district court’s a

war d of only

a portion of the r equeste d restitution contrave nes the plain languag e of the sta t u t e. Petitioners urg e us to reve rs e the dist rict cour t’s restitution order and impose joint andsever al liability on defe ndant Jose phCantr e lle for a ll o f t he ir los se s. Pe tit ion e rs a lso re a sse rt th eir argume nt t

hat Kennedy

was wr ong ly

decide d and should be ove rruled. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t c omm it l e g a l e rr or

or a bu se its dis c re tio n in dec lin ing to imp os e joi nt a nd se ve ra l li a

bil ity in this case. The appropr iate method for calc ulating a re stitut ion awa rd un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 22 59 is an ope n q ue sti on in t his Circuit. See Ke nnedy , 6 43 F .3d at 1265 . N ow he re in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2259 or 3664(h), the g ener al fe dera l criminal res tit uti on statut e , is joi nt a

nd se ve ra l li a

bil ity e xpre ssl y authorized. Fur

ther, numer ous sister court s h ave concluded that § 3664(h) only

allows for joint and seve ral liability wher e the defen d an t s from whom joint liabili ty is sought ar e defe ndants in the same c ase. See, e .g. , Un ite d S tates v . F as t , 709 F.3d 7 1 2, 723 n.6 (8th Cir. 2013); United States v. Laran e ta , 700 F.3d 983, 992–9 3 (7th Cir. 2012); United Sta te s v . A um ais , 656 F.3d 147, 156 ( 2d Cir. 2011).
Moreove r, there is a clea

r split in authority

on this iss ue. Severa l circuit courts have e x pressly declined to impose joint and seve ral l i ab i l ity

in the context of a restitution awar d under 18 U .S.C. § 2259(b)(1). See, e .g. , Ga mb le , 709 F.3d at 55 2; Fa st , 709 F.3d at 723 n.6; Au ma is , 656 F.3d at 156. Of the c ir c uit c ou

rt s to c on sid e r t

he iss ue , o nly

the F if th C ir c uit has imposed joint and severa l liabilit y for r estitution pursuant to § 2 259. Se e In reAm

yUn k no wn , 701 F.3d 749, 769–71I N RE : A MY & V I CKY 6 (5t h Cir. 2012) (en ba nc), p e ti ti o n s fo r

c e r t. fi le d , __ U.S.L .W. __ (U.S. J an 31, 2013) (Nos. 12-8505, 12-8561). The F ifth Circuit , h oweve r, simultaneously reje cted the proximat e c a

us e re qu ir e me nt a do pte d b y thi s c ourt

in Kennedy

. See 70 1 F .3d at 765– 66 . U nd e r t he se c ir c ums tanc e s, the dis tr ict c ourt did no t e rr in d e c lin ingto i mp o s e j o i n t

an d s e v e r a l l i a

b i l i ty. Petitioners’ reque st that this court ove rrule Kennedy was p r e v io u s ly c o n s id e r e d an d d e nied. S ee Amy I , 710 F.3d at 98 7. Ab se nt “ int e rv e nin g hi gh e r a uth or ity” that is “ c le arl y irreco ncilable” with our circ uit prece dent, Kennedy rema ins binding on this pane l. Mi lle r v . G am mi e , 335 F.3d 889, 893, 90 0 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 3) (e n b anc ). No su c h a uth or ity e xists

. Indeed, pe titioners conce de as much i n their petition and me re ly se e k to pr e se rv e the iss ue fo r f utu re pr oc e eding s in thi s c ourt

or be fo re the Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Court

. Acc ording ly , the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DE NI ED

.