United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-40133

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Edward Sanchez,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CR-850-1

Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Edward Sanchez was convicted by a jury on nine counts of various sex 

crimes involving minors. He was sentenced to, inter alia, life imprisonment 

and ordered to pay $3,091.55 in restitution to each of three minor victims, 

totaling $9,274.65, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2429 and former 18 U.S.C. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 28, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40133 Document: 00516558208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
No. 22-40133

2

§ 2259. These amounts are intended to compensate the victims for future 

counseling. 

Sanchez proceeded pro se at trial and sentencing. He is represented by 

counsel on appeal. Sanchez challenges the restitution order, contending 

there was insufficient evidence supporting the award. (In his reply brief on 

appeal, he concedes other challenges on appeal lack merit.) 

Assuming, without deciding, Sanchez preserved the remaining issue 

raised on appeal, our court reviews the “restitution order’s legality de novo 

and its amount for abuse of discretion”. United States v. Villalobos, 879 F.3d 

169, 171 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for clear error. E.g., 

United States v. Read, 710 F.3d 219, 231 (5th Cir. 2012).

Former § 2259 provided mandatory restitution for “the full amount 

of the victim’s losses”, including “costs incurred for psychiatric and 

psychological care”. Villalobos, 879 F.3d at 171 (citation omitted). Under 

§ 2429, restitution is mandatory for the “full amount of the victim’s losses”,

including “costs incurred, or that are reasonably projected to be incurred . . . 

as a proximate result of the offenses involving the victim” for, inter alia, 

“medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care”. 18 

U.S.C. § 2429(b)(3); id. § 2259(c)(2); see United States v. Kempter, 29 F.4th 

960, 969 (8th Cir. 2022) (Section 2429(b)(3)’s cross-reference to 

§ 2259(b)(3), rather than § 2259(c)(2), is a scrivener’s error.). 

Each victim submitted a statement explaining how she was affected by 

Sanchez’ actions, and a counselor who interviewed the victims testified at 

sentencing that they could benefit from counseling services. Moreover, the 

presentence investigation report (PSR) provided a detailed explanation of 

how the recommended restitution amounts were calculated, and a victim 

witness coordinator testified the amounts were reasonable estimates of the 

costs the victims would incur for counseling in the Philippines. 

Case: 22-40133 Document: 00516558208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
No. 22-40133

3

Although the amount of restitution ordered might not be “exact”,

there is no indication it represents the court’s “caprice”. Villalobos, 879 F.3d 

at 172 (citation omitted); see also United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 

(5th Cir. 2012) (court may adopt facts in PSR if they “have an adequate 

evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia of reliability and the defendant does 

not present rebuttal evidence or otherwise demonstrate that the information 

in the PSR is unreliable” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, the restitution 

order was not an abuse of discretion. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-40133 Document: 00516558208 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/28/2022