N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SHANE TR

AVIS M ASSA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50573

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00471-W QH-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Q. Ha y e s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

10, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C LIFTON, C ALLAHAN, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Shane M a ssa

ple a d e d guilty

to posse ssing c hild pornogra phy and wa s orde re d to pa

y re stitution pursua

nt to 18 U.S.C . § 2259. Henow a ppe a l s the distric t
c ourt’ s re stitution orde

r a s to thre e of his vic tim s. Although we a pprove m ost of the 

# FIL ED
APR 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.distric t c o urt’ s tre atm e nt of re stitution to the se vic tim s , it is ne c e ssa ry to va c ate the
award and to re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. In its re stitution orde

r, the distric t c ourt ide n tifie d se ve ra l fa c tors se t forth in Paroline v . Unite d State

s , 134 S. C t. 1710, 1722 (2014), for distric t c ourts to
c onside r in c a lc ulating re s titution a wards. The s e fa c t ors inc lude d the num be r of pa st c rim ina l de fe nda

nts to ha ve c ontribute d

to the vic tim s’ ge ne ra l losse s, whe the r M a s sa re p roduc e d or distribute d im a ge s of the vic tim s, 1 whe the r M a ssa wa s involve d in the initia l produc tion of theim a ge s , a nd how m any

im a ge s of the vic t im s M a ssa

ha d be e n found to posse ss. The c ourt a lso note d how m a ny de fe nda n ts in othe r c a se s ha d be e n orde re d to pa y re stitution to the

vic tim s, the
range of the individual re stitution orde rs, a nd the sum

of the tota l re stitution pa id. Taking a ll of the se fa c t ors into a c c ount, a n d a ppa re ntly re ly ing on the num

be r of im a ge s of e a c h vic tim found on M a s sa ’ s c om pute r to de t e rm ine “ the de fe nda nt’ s

1 M a ssa argue s tha

t it wa s e rror for the distric t c o urt to c onside r the fa c t tha t he m a de the file s a

v a ila ble on a file -sha ring sitein de te rm ining there stitution am ount, be c a

u se the gove rnm e nt ha d not prove n tha t a ny o ne ha d downloa de d im a ge s of the spe c ific vic tim s se e king re stitution. B ut M a ssa doe s not c o n te st tha

t he m a de the file s a

v a ila ble for downloa d, a

nd the distric t c o urt ne e d not provide e vide nc e suffic ie nt to support a c onvic tion for distributing c h ild pornogra

p hy be fore it c an c onside r that fa c t in c ra fting a re stitution orde

r. Se e , e .g., Unite d State s v . N ajjor , 255 F.3d 979, 984 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ The distric t c ourt ha s broa d disc re tion to de te rm ine the ty p e and a m ount of e vide nc e re quire d to support a

n award of re stitution.” ) 2re lative role in the c a usa l proc e ss tha

t unde rlie s [e a c h] vic tim ’ s ge n e ra l losse s,” Paroline , 134 S. C t. at 1727, thec ourt a warde d $8,000 to e a c h of the vic tim s whose awards a

re at issue on a

ppe a l. The distric t c ourt “ a sse ss[e d] a s be st it [c ould] from ava ila ble e vide n c e the signific anc e of the individual de fe n da nt’ s c onduc t in light of the broa de r c a

usa l proc e s se s tha

t produc e d the vic tim [s’ ] losse s.” Id. at 1727-28. This wa s not a

“ pre c ise m athe m atic a l inquiry ,” but it “ c annot” be
. Id. at 1728. It would ha ve be e n he lpful for the c ourt to ha ve provide d

m ore de ta il a s to how it re a c he d the $8,000 figure for e a c h vic tim , a

n d we e nc oura ge the c ourt to do so on rem and, but the
awards a ppe ar “ re a sona

ble and c irc um sc ribe d,” and ne ithe r “ toke n or nom ina l” nor

“ se ve re . ” Id. at 1727. W e c onc lude tha t the m e thod thec ourt use d to re a c h the
award am ounts wa s ne ithe r c ontra ry to Paroline nor a

n a b use of the distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Gordon , 393 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C i r. 2004) (re stitution orde

rs a re re vie w e d for a

buse of disc re tion providing tha t the y are within thebounds of the sta t utory fra m e work). The distric t c ourt a l so did not err in fa iling to distinguish be twe e n losse s
c a use d by the ongoing tra ffic in the vic tim s’ im a ge s tha t ha p pe ne d be fore M a ssa first a c c e s se d the im a g e s from the losse s tha

t ha ppe ne d a fte r he first a c c e sse d the

3im a ge s. Paroline c la rifie d tha t, in the“ s pe c ia l c onte xt” of re stitution for c hild pornogra phy vic tim s : whe re it c an b e shown both tha t a de fe nda nt posse sse d a

vic tim ’ s im a ge s a nd tha t a vic tim ha s outsta

nding losse s c a

use d by the c ontinuing tra ffic in thoseim a ge s but whe re it is im p ossibleto tra c e a pa rtic ula r am ount of those

losse s to the individual de fe nda nt by re c ourse to a

m ore tra ditiona l c a

usa l inquiry , a

c ourt a pply i ng § 2259 should orde r re stitution in a n am ount tha

t c om ports with the de fe nda nt’ s re lative role in the c a u sa l proc e ss tha

t unde rlie s the vic tim ’ s ge ne ra l losse s. 134 S. C t. at 1728. This re laxe d c a usation inquiry

a l lows distric t c ourts to c onside r

“ ge ne ra l losse s” a s a

sta rting point for the

re stitution a

na ly s is, whe re “ ge ne ra l losse s” re fe rs to a l l of a

vic t im ’ s losse s ste m

m ing from

tra ffic in his or he r im a ge s
re ga rdle s s of whe the r the y

we re c a use d by any individual pe rpe trator at a ny spe c ific m om e nt in tim e . Id. Howe v e r, the distric t c ourt did e rrone ously a c c e pt infla te d loss e stim ate s from e a c h of the thre e vic tim s whose awards a re on a ppe a l. This wa s not y e t
c le arly e sta blishe d in this c irc uit a

t the tim e the distric t c ourt c a l c ulate d its a ward, but we have sinc e inte rpre te d Paroline to re q uire tha t “ the losse s, inc luding ongoing losse s , c a

use d by the origina l a

buse of [e a c h] vic tim should be disa ggre gate d

from the losse s c a

use d by the ongoing distribution a n d posse ssion of im a ge s of tha

t origina l a

buse , to the e xte nt possible .” U nite d State

s v . Galan , 804

4F.3d 1287, 1291 (9th C ir. 2015). W hile we c onc lude d a

bove tha t a vic tim ’ s

“ ge ne ra l losse s” inc lude a ll losse s ste m m ing from

the tra ffic in his or he r im a ge s, the y do not inc l ude losse s ste m m ing from

the origina l se xua l a

buse tha t the im a ge s doc um e nt. Id. The distric t c o urt e rre d to the e xte n t tha t it a c c e pte d the vic tim s’ tota l da m a ge e stim ate s e ve n though the se e s tim at e s did not distinguish losse s
c a use d by the initia l se x u a l a

buse from

those c a use d by ongoing tra ffic in im a ge s of the a buse
. W e va c ate the re stitution orde r an d re m a n d for furthe r proc e e dings

. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

5