# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 36 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Tho m as Ro be rt P ag e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 18 Fi le d: Marc h 2 2, 2 01 9 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Tho m as Ro be rt Pag e, an Am eri can ci ti zen te ach in g in Cam ero on , s ex ua ll y ab us ed th ree Cam ero on ia n m al e m in or s whil e th ere. Later, the go ve rn m en t char ge d Pag e by in di ct m en t wit h th ree co un ts of en ga gi ng in il li ci t se xu al co nd uc t in fo rei gn pl aces

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 24 23 (c). Pag e pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t. Fo ll owi ng Pag e’sgu il ty pl ea, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 12 0 m on th s’ i mp r i so nm en t. In 1
ad di ti on , th e co ur t g ran te d t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n for an ord er of rest it ut io n. Th e

co ur t ord ered Pag e to pa y th e v ic ti m

$2 7,0 11 .74 in res ti tu ti on un de r th e Man da to ry Vict im s Res ti tu ti on Act (MVRA)

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 36 63 A. Pag e ap pe al s a po rti on of th at jud gm en t, arg ui ng th a t t h e c o ur t erre d by or de rin g hi m to pa y res ti tu ti on fo r
cert a i n cl ai m ed pr op ert y lo ss es to ta li ng $7 ,00 0.0 0. He co nt en ds th e go ve rn m en t’s

ev id en ce di d no t m eet th e s t a t u t o r y st an da rd req ui red to su pp or t an award

. W e di sa gr ee an d a ffi rm

.

I. Bac kg ro un d Pag e pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of en ga gi ng in il li ci t se xu al co nd uc t in fo rei gn pl aces , st ip ul at in g to th e fact s ne ces sa ry to es ta bl is h th e ch arg ed of f e n s e. The proba tio n of

fi ce pr ep ared a pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ). The PSR in cl ud ed th e res ti tu ti on req ue st of on e of Pag e’s vi ct im s, id en ti fie d as S.A. Pag e ob jecte d to a
po rti on of th e res ti tu ti on req ue st

. He arg ue d th at th e req ue st ed res ti tu ti on sh ou ld be de ni ed be cau se it so ught da m ag es no t av ai la bl e un de r th e MVRA. Alt ern at iv el y , Pag e
arg ue d th at if th e da m ag es were av ai la bl e, th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to ad du ce su ffi ci en t, rel ia bl e ev id en ce to pr ov e th em

. Th e d i s t r i c t co ur t ov erru le d Pag e’s ob jecti on an d

co nc lu de d th at he sh ou ld pa y pr op ert y da m ag es in cu rred by th e vi ct im ’s fam il y as a

co ns eq ue nc e o f hi s cr im es . The co ur t fo un d t ha t t he vi ct im ’s fam il y su ffer ed lo ss es of pr op ert y , in cl ud in g th ei r ren te d res id en ce. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at “ th e fam il y ’s

ev ic ti on [fro m th at res id en ce] was di rect ly rel at ed to P a g e ’s a c t i on s” an d th at th ei r

“ ev ic ti on was reas on ab ly fo res eeab le in Cam ero on .” Res ti tu ti on Ord er at 4, Uni te d
St at es v. Pag e , No. 0: 15 -cr- 00 28 4 (D. Mi nn

. Nov

. 14
, 20 17 ), ECF No. 13 3. The co ur t di d, ho wev er, red uc e th e req ue st ed pr op ert y da m ag es owe d to S.A. by “ ro ug hl y 50 %”

to $7 ,00 0 be cau se th ey were “ to o hi gh to rep la ce us ed go od s.” Id

. at 5. The co ur t al so award ed $1 6,1 84 fo r pa st an d fu tu re m ed ic al ex pe ns es

. Fi na ll y , th e co ur t award ed

The Hon or ab le Don ov an W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.
-2

-$3 ,82 7.7 4 to th e Gen eral Cri m e Vict im s Fu nd fo r tra ve l ex pe ns es

. In to ta l, th e co ur t

or de red Pag e to pa y

$2 7,0 11 .74 in m an da to ry res ti tu ti on

.

II. Dis cu ss io n On ap pe al
, Pag e ch al le ng es on ly th e pr op ert y lo ss po rti on of th e di st ric t co ur t’s

res ti tu ti on or de r. Sp eci fic al ly, Pag e rai se s th ree ba se s fo r rev ers al of th e or de r. Fi rs t, he arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in it s fact ua l fin di ng s be cau se th ey co nt rad ic te d th e reco rd de ve lo pe d at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. S e c on d, he co nt en ds th at th e co ur t rel ie d u po n i ns uf

fic ie nt ev id en ce b ecau se th e ev id en ce p res en te d l ack ed rel ia bi li ty. And t h i rd
, he as se rts th at th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce fai le d to sh ow hi s co nd uc t
pr ox im at el y

cau se d t he all eg ed da m ag es

.

W e r e v i e w th e di st ric t co ur t’s award of res ti tu ti on un de r th e MVRA fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Reic ho w , 41 6 F.3 d 80 2, 80 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W e

rev ie w it s “ fact -fi nd in g as to th e am ou nt of res ti tu ti on ” fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es

v. Osl un d
, 45 3 F.3 d 10 48
, 10 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Pag e arg ue s th at we sh ou ld ap pl y de

no vo rev ie w be cau se “ a di st ric t co ur t’s co ns tru ct io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e MVRA is

a qu es ti on of la w.” App el la nt ’s Br. at 8 (ci ti ng Osl un d
, 45 3 F.3 d a t 1 0 62 ). Pag e is

co rrec t th at d e no vo rev ie w wou ld ap pl y if ou r in qu iry were an ex am in at io n of th e di st ric t cou rt’s leg al co ns tru ct io n of the MVRA. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z , 69 0
F.3 d 10 83
, 10 88 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Bu t, th e gr av am en of Pag e’s ap pe al is th e rel ia bi li ty

an d su ffi ci en cy of th e fact ua l un de rp in ni ng of th e co ur t’s ul ti m at e de ci si on to award

res ti tu ti on

. W e wil l rev ie w th e co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d it s de ci si on
to m ak e a res ti tu ti on award for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

Pag e’s fir st co nt en ti on is th at th e co ur t ’s fact ua l fin di ng s co nt rad ic te d th e

reco rd . S pe ci fic al ly, h e arg ue s th at whi le “ th e di st ric t co ur t’s res ti tu ti on awa rd was
pr em is ed up on pr op ert y lo ss es al le ge dl y cau se d by a Cam ero on la nd lo rd in eject in g SA an d hi s fam il y m em

be rs fro m th ei r ho m e,” ot he r ev id en ce su gg es te d “ th e la nd lo rd

was act ua ll y un su cces sf ul in eject in g SA an d hi s fam il y fro m th e i r ho m e.”

-3

-App el la nt ’s Br. at 9

– 10

. Acco rd in g to Pag e, Hom el an d Secu rit y In ve st ig at io ns

Sp eci al Age nt Jo na th an Duz an ’s te st im on y at th e res ti tu ti on h eari ng sh owe d “ th e fam il y le ft th e ho m e of th ei r own vo li ti on in or de r to av oi d un sp eci fie d ‘ridi cu le an d ha ras sm en t’ di rect ed by un id en ti fie d co m m un it y m em

be rs .” Id

. at 10 (q uo ti ng Tr. of
Res ti tu ti on Hr’g at 30
, Uni te d St at es v. Pag e , No. 0: 15 -cr- 00 28 4 (D. Mi nn

. Ju ly 27
, 20 17 ), EC F N o

. 1 20 ). Pag e as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t “ m is ap pr eh en de d th e
go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce,” whi ch was “ un de rs ta nd ab le ” be cau se th e he ari ng te st im on y

su pp os ed ly con tra di ct ed th e wri tt en vi ct im im pa ct st at em en ts

. Id

. at 9 –1 0.

Pag e’s arg um en t fai ls

. Pag e arg ue d in hi s po st -h eari ng m em or an du m th at th e 2
la nd lo rd of S.A.’ s fam il y ’s r es id en ce cau se d th e ev ic ti on an d pr op er t y d am ag e, no t h i m. Th e di st ric t co ur t, ho wev er, m ad e sp eci fic fin di ng s th at th e la nd lo rd ’s a ct io n s
to ward S.A.’ s fam il y res ul te d di rect ly fro m t h e st ig m a pl aced on S.A. by Pag e’s cri m in al se xu al co nd uc t. Pag e at ta ck s th e co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s, bu t he fai ls to sh ow th at th ey are cl earl y erro ne ou s. The co ur t be lo w co ns id ered th e en ti ret y of th e reco rd
,
res ol ve d po te nt ia ll y co nf

li ct in g ev id en ce, an d m ad e ap pr op ria te fin di ng s of fact

. The

co ur t’s fa ct ua l fi nd in gs are n ot cle arl y erro ne ou s.

Pag e’s se co nd co nt en ti on is th at th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce la ck ed rel ia bi li ty. In it s or de r, th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at “ [t]he ru le s of ev id en ce do no t ap pl y at

se nt en ci ng , b ut su bm it te d in fo rm at io n m us t ha ve ‘suf

fic ie nt in di ci a of

rel ia bi li ty t o

su pp ort [i ts] pr oba

ble ac cu racy .’ ” Res ti tu ti on Ord er at 5 (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al )

W e as su m e, wit ho ut de ci di ng , th at Pag e rai se d th is is su e be fo re t h e d i st ric t 2

co ur t. Fo ll owi ng th e res ti tu ti on he ari ng , Pag e fi le d a m em or an du m set ti ng for th hi s po si ti on reg ard in g res ti tu ti on

. In th at m e mo ran du m , Pag e di d no t arg ue th at th e la nd lo rd ne ve r ev ic te d S.A. an d hi s fam il y fro m th ei r ho m e. In st ead
, Pag e arg ue d th at

“ th e la nd lo rd ’s de ci si on to ev ic t th e fam il y ” was an in te rv en in g cau se be twee n Pag e’s of fen se co nd uc t an d th e fam il y ’s pr op ert y lo ss su ffi ci en t t o br eak th e ch ai n of pr ox im at e cau sa ti on

. Def.’s Po si ti on Reg ard in g Re s t it ut io n at 10
, Uni te d St at es v. Pag e , No. 0 :1 5- cr-0 02 84 (D. Min n. Au g. 1 4, 2 01 7) , ECF No. 1 25

.
-4

-(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ade j u m o , 8 4 8 F.3 d 86 8, 87 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 )). The co ur t

rev ie wed th e te st im on y of Sp eci al Age nt Duz an , as well as t h e s u b mi tt ed wit ne ss
st at em en ts fro m

S.A.’ s fa m il y

de cl ari ng th e v al ue of i te m s l os t as a co ns eq ue nc e o f Pag e’s cri m e. The co ur t cred it ed th e wit ne ss es ’ cl ai m s th at cert ai n it em s ha d be en lo st du e to Pag e’s se x cri m e ag ai ns t S.A. The co ur t, ho w e v e r, di d no t in di sc riminat el y

acce pt th e cl ai m ed lo ss es at face va lu e. I n fact
, th e co ur t di sc ou nt ed cert ai n va lu es li st ed to m or e cl os el y refl ect th ei r co nd it io n at th e ti m e of lo ss

. The co ur t, pe rfo rm in g it s fact -fi nd in g fu nc ti on , de te rm in ed th at th e va lu e pl aced on th os e lo st it em s ne ed ed

to be ad jus te d. It di d so by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. The co ur t’s de ci si on to award res ti tu ti on was n ot an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

Pag e’s fi na l ar gu m en t i s t ha t, u lt im at el y , th e d am ag e am ou nt s ar e im m at eri al be cau se th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to es ta bl is h th at Pag e’s of fen se co nd uc t was th e
pr ox im at e cau se fo r an y da m ag e to S.A. an d hi s fam il y

. Pag e as se rts th at no da m ag es sh ou ld b e award ed be cau se th e “ cl ai m ed lo ss es m ig ht ha ve be en accr ue d wit h or wit ho ut th e of

fen se co nd uc t at is su e.” App el la nt ’s Br. at 13 (ci ti ng Mar ti ne z , 69 0 F.3 d

at 10 88 –8 9)

. Mar ti ne

z , whi ch P a g e rel ie s on in su pp or t of hi s arg um en t, is read il y di st in gu is ha bl e fro m th is cas e. Mar ti ne z in vo lv ed a co m

pl ex ba nk frau d con sp ira cy in vo lv in g te ns of m il li on s of do ll ars

. 69 0 F.3 d at 10 89

. The di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to award res ti tu ti on “ du e to th e co m pl ex it y of de te rm in in g th e am ou nt of lo ss pr op erl y
at tri bu ta bl e to Mar ti ne z.” I d

. U n l ik e Mar ti ne

z , t hi s cas e is si m

pl e. Pag e m ol es te d a ch il d wh os e fam il y

ex pe rie nc ed pro pe rty los s in Cam ero on as a di rect co ns eq ue nc e of th e st ig m a at ta ch ed to th e ch il d b ecau se of P ag e’s cri m in al co nd uc t.

The di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to award res ti tu ti on was no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n,

an d i ts cal cu la ti on of t he award am ou nt was n ot cle arl y erro ne ou s.

III. Co nc lu si on Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-