United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3658

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Thomas Robert Page

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

Submitted: October 19, 2018

Filed: March 22, 2019 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Robert Page, an American citizen teaching in Cameroon, sexually

abused three Cameroonian male minors while there. Later, the government charged

Page by indictment with three counts of engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign

places. See 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c). Page pleaded guilty to one count. Following Page’s
guilty plea, the district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment. In 1

addition, the court granted the government’s motion for an order of restitution. The

court ordered Page to pay the victim $27,011.74 in restitution under the Mandatory

Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. Page appeals a portion of

that judgment, arguing that the court erred by ordering him to pay restitution for

certain claimed property losses totaling $7,000.00. He contends the government’s

evidence did not meet the statutory standard required to support an award. We

disagree and affirm.

I. Background

Page pleaded guilty to one count of engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign

places, stipulating to the facts necessary to establish the charged offense. The

probation office prepared a presentence investigation report (PSR). The PSR included

the restitution request of one of Page’s victims, identified as S.A. Page objected to a

portion of the restitution request. He argued that the requested restitution should be

denied because itsought damages not available under the MVRA. Alternatively, Page

argued that if the damages were available, the government failed to adduce sufficient,

reliable evidence to prove them. The district court overruled Page’s objection and

concluded that he should pay property damages incurred by the victim’s family as a

consequence of his crimes. The court found that the victim’s family suffered losses

of property, including their rented residence. The court concluded that “the family’s

eviction [from that residence] was directly related to Page’s actions” and that their

“eviction was reasonably foreseeable in Cameroon.” Restitution Order at 4, United

States v. Page, No. 0:15-cr-00284 (D. Minn. Nov. 14, 2017), ECF No. 133. The court

did, however, reduce the requested property damages owed to S.A. by “roughly 50%”

to $7,000 because they were “too high to replace used goods.” Id. at 5. The court also

awarded $16,184 for past and future medical expenses. Finally, the court awarded

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

-2-
$3,827.74 to the General Crime Victims Fund for travel expenses. In total, the court

ordered Page to pay $27,011.74 in mandatory restitution. 

II. Discussion

On appeal, Page challenges only the property loss portion of the district court’s

restitution order. Specifically, Page raises three bases for reversal of the order. First,

he argues that the district court erred in its factual findings because they contradicted

the record developed at the sentencing hearing. Second, he contends that the court

relied upon insufficient evidence because the evidence presented lacked reliability.

And third, he asserts that the government’s evidence failed to show his conduct

proximately caused the alleged damages. 

We review the district court’s award of restitution under the MVRA for an

abuse of discretion. United States v. Reichow, 416 F.3d 802, 804 (8th Cir. 2005). We

review its “fact-finding as to the amount of restitution” for clear error. United States

v. Oslund, 453 F.3d 1048, 1062 (8th Cir. 2006). Page argues that we should apply de

novo review because “a district court’s construction and application of the MVRA is

a question of law.” Appellant’s Br. at 8 (citing Oslund, 453 F.3d at 1062). Page is

correct that de novo review would apply if our inquiry were an examination of the

district court’s legal construction of the MVRA. See United States v. Martinez, 690

F.3d 1083, 1088 (8th Cir. 2012). But, the gravamen of Page’s appeal is the reliability

and sufficiency of the factual underpinning of the court’s ultimate decision to award

restitution. We will review the court’s findings of fact for clear error and its decision

to make a restitution award for an abuse of discretion. 

Page’s first contention is that the court’s factual findings contradicted the

record. Specifically, he argues that while “the district court’s restitution award was

premised upon property losses allegedly caused by a Cameroon landlord in ejecting

SA and his familymembersfromtheir home,” other evidence suggested “the landlord

was actually unsuccessful in ejecting SA and his family from their home.”

-3-
Appellant’s Br. at 9–10. According to Page, Homeland Security Investigations

Special Agent Jonathan Duzan’s testimony at the restitution hearing showed “the

family left the home of their own volition in order to avoid unspecified ‘ridicule and

harassment’ directed by unidentified community members.” Id. at 10 (quoting Tr. of

Restitution Hr’g at 30, United States v. Page, No. 0:15-cr-00284 (D. Minn. July 27,

2017), ECF No. 120). Page asserts that the district court “misapprehended the

government’s evidence,” which was “understandable” because the hearing testimony

supposedly contradicted the written victim impact statements. Id. at 9–10. 

Page’s argument fails. Page argued in his post-hearing memorandum that the

2

landlord of S.A.’s family’s residence caused the eviction and property damage, not

him. The district court, however, made specific findings that the landlord’s actions

toward S.A.’s family resulted directly from the stigma placed on S.A. by Page’s

criminalsexual conduct. Page attacks the court’s factual findings, but he failsto show

that they are clearly erroneous. The court below considered the entirety of the record,

resolved potentially conflicting evidence, and made appropriate findings of fact. The

court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous.

Page’s second contention is that the government’s evidence lacked reliability.

In its order, the district court noted that “[t]he rules of evidence do not apply at

sentencing, but submitted information must have ‘sufficient indicia of reliability to

support [its]probable accuracy.’” Restitution Order at 5 (second alteration in original)

We assume, without deciding, that Page raised this issue before the district

2

court. Following the restitution hearing, Page filed a memorandum setting forth his

position regarding restitution. In that memorandum, Page did not argue that the

landlord never evicted S.A. and his family fromtheir home. Instead, Page argued that

“the landlord’s decision to evict the family” was an intervening cause between Page’s

offense conduct and the family’s property loss sufficient to break the chain of

proximate causation. Def.’s Position Regarding Restitution at 10, United States v.

Page, No. 0:15-cr-00284 (D. Minn. Aug. 14, 2017), ECF No. 125. 

-4-
(quoting United States v. Adejumo, 848 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2017)). The court

reviewed the testimony of Special Agent Duzan, as well as the submitted witness

statements from S.A.’s family declaring the value of items lost as a consequence of

Page’s crime. The court credited the witnesses’ claims that certain items had been lost

due to Page’s sex crime against S.A. The court, however, did not indiscriminately

accept the claimed losses at face value. In fact, the court discounted certain values

listed to more closely reflect their condition at the time of loss. The court, performing

its fact-finding function, determined that the value placed on those lost items needed

to be adjusted. It did so by a preponderance of the evidence. The court’s decision to

award restitution was not an abuse of discretion.

Page’s final argument is that, ultimately, the damage amounts are immaterial

because the government failed to establish that Page’s offense conduct was the

proximate cause for any damage to S.A. and his family. Page asserts that no damages

should be awarded because the “claimed losses might have been accrued with or

without the offense conduct at issue.” Appellant’s Br. at 13 (citing Martinez, 690 F.3d

at 1088–89). Martinez, which Page relies on in support of his argument, is readily

distinguishable from this case. Martinez involved a complex bank fraud conspiracy

involving tens of millions of dollars. 690 F.3d at 1089. The district court declined to

award restitution “due to the complexity of determining the amount of loss properly

attributable to Martinez.” Id. Unlike Martinez, this case is simple. Page molested a

child whose family experienced property loss in Cameroon as a direct consequence

of the stigma attached to the child because of Page’s criminal conduct. 

The district court’s decision to award restitution was not an abuse of discretion,

and its calculation of the award amount was not clearly erroneous.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

-5-