FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 62 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 9- cr-0 00 38 -RLV-WEJ-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHADW ICK BRANNON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, HULL andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la ntCh adwickBran no n app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er tha t h e p ayres ti tu ti on to a vi ct im of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, foll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e fo r po ss es si on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B) an d (b )(2 ). On ap pe al , Bran no n a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin ord eri ng hi m to pa y res ti tu ti on to th e v ic ti m

be cau se th e co urt h el d h is res ti tu ti onhe ari ng m or e th an90 da y s af

te r hi s s en te nc in g h eari ng , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( d) (5 ). He arg ue s t ha t eq ui tabl e to ll in g d idno t t ol l t he 90 -d ay de ad li ne , andth athe di d no t wai ve th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e 9 0- da y de ad li ne . Add it io na ll y , Bran no n arg ue s th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itfou ndth athi s p os se ss io n o f th e ch il d po rn og rap hy vic ti m ’s im ag es pro xi m at el y cau se d h arm

to th e v ic ti m . Alt ern at iv el y , Bran no n a rg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredwhen itord eredhi m to pa y anun reas on ab le res ti tu ti on am ou ntof $ 3,5 00 to th e v ic ti m . I. BACK GROUND Bran no n was in di ct edin Nov em be r 20 09 forkn owi ng ly recei vi ng m at eri al co nt ai ni ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy (Cou nt1) a ndkn owi ng ly pos se ss in g m at eri al co nt ai ni ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy (Cou nt2). A jury fou ndBran no n n otgu il ty on Co un t 1 an d g ui lt y

on Co un t 2 . As no te d i n t he pro ba ti on off ic e’s pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ), anid en ti fiabl e v ic ti m , who forpri va cy pu rp os es is id en ti fie d a s “ Vicky ,” reque st edres ti tu ti on pri orto Bran no n’s s en te nc in g h eari ng he ldon Octo be r 28 , 20 10 . At se nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ctco urt re ferr edth e is su e o f 2res ti tu ti on to a m ag is tra te jud ge witho utde ci di ng whet he r res ti tu ti on sh ou ldbe

or de red . Pu rs uantto 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( d) (5 ), th e d is tri ctco urt h ad90 da y s fr om se nt en ci ng , or u nt il Jan ua ry 26 , 20 11 , to de te rm in e whe th er Vi cky was B ran no n’s vi ct im an d, i f so , th e am ou ntof Vi cky ’s lo ss es . On Janu ary 14 , 20 11 , th e m ag is tra te jud ge he lda te le ph on ic he ari ng with t he Gov ern m en t’s at to rn ey an d Bran no n’s at to rn ey , at wh ic h t im e th e co urt d is cu ss edth e im pe nd in g 9 0- da y de ad li ne . Fore se ei ng th e p ro babi li ty tha t t he pa rti es m ig htno t h av e in fo rm at io n an d wi tn es se s av ai labl e wit hi n t he ne xt12 da y s, t he m ag is tra te jud ge ask ed Bran no n’s at to rn ey

whet he r he wou ldwaiv e th e 9 0- da y requi rem en t. The co urt ex pl ic it ly stat edth atBran no n wo ul d “ ha ve to waiv e” t he de ad li ne , andth enask ed ,

“ W il l you a gr ee i n c as e [the he ari ng ]’ s o ut si de th e 9 0 d ay s? ” to whi ch Bran no n’s at to rn ey rep li ed , “ Yes .” [Tr. of

Jan ua ry 14 , 20 11 Hr’g at 1 8.] Later dur in g t he te le ph on ic he ari ng , Bran no n’s at to rn ey su gg es te d b eg in ni ng th e res ti tu ti onhe ari ng wit hi n t he 90 -d ay

pe rio d a ndfin is hi ng it , if n eces sa ry , beyon d t he de ad li ne . Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt s etanin it ia l h eari ng forJan ua ry 18 , 20 11 . Howev er, o n J an ua ry

18 Bran no n was un av ai labl e to ap pe ar b ecau se he was in cu st od ia l t ran sp ort fr om Virg in iato Geor gi a; th e Gov ern m en t was no t yet pr ep aredto cal l wi tn es se s, an d t hu s, n o e vi de nc e was pre se nt ed . Whe n t he 3m ag is tra te jud ge rei te rat edhi s u nd ers ta nd in g t ha t Br an no n h adwaiv edth e 9 0- da y

de ad li ne , Bran no n’s at to rn ey sai d t ha t h e d idno t re cal l an y m en ti on of “ th e ul ti m at e wai ve r.” [R. 9 7 a t 5 .] Whi le th e at to rn ey s d is cu ss edth e p os si bi li ty of be gi nn in g the res ti tu ti on he ari ng on Jan ua ry 24 or 2 5, n o h eari ng tra ns pi redon ei th er d at e. On Fe brua ry

23 , 20 11 , abo uton e m on th aft er the pa ss in g o f th e 9 0- da y de ad li ne , Bran no n fi le d am ot io n fo r anord er d en y in g re st itut io n b ecau se of t he co urt’s n on co m

pl ia nc e wit h 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 64 (d )(5 ). On Fe brua ry 25 , th e m ag is tra te jud ge he ldanin fo rm al st atus co nf eren ce an d re cal le d d efen se co un se l’s waiv er o f th e 9 0- da y

de ad li ne . Bran no n’s at to rn ey st at edth atth e wai ve r was co nt in ge ntup on st art in g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng withi n t he 90 -d ay pe rio d, an d co m pl et in g i t b ey on d t he de ad li ne , if n eces sa ry . The m ag is tra te jud ge pro ceed ed to sch edul e a res ti tu ti on he ari ng forMarc h 3 0, 2 01 1, an d e nt eredanord er d en y in g Bran no n’s Fe brua ry

23 m ot io n. At the Marc h 3 0 re st itut io n h eari ng , th e Gov ern m en t p res en te d t es ti m on y fro m Dr. Ran da ll Greenwho ps y ch ol og ic al ly eval ua te d Vi cky be fo re an d a fte r Bran no n’s i nd ic tm en t. Dr. Green ex pl ai ne d t he na tu re o f Vic ky’ s s ex ua l ab us e as a ch il d a s wel l as th e d is se m in at io n o f reco rd in gs of t he ab us e o n t he in te rn et . Dr. Green bi furcat edth e tr au m a th atVicky ex pe rie nc edas ares ul t o f he r se xu al ab us e 4fro m

th e tr au m a th atsh e ex pe rie nc edas ares ul t o f he r kn owl ed ge of i ts di st rib ut io n v iath e in te rn et . He furt he r ex pl ai ne d h er es ti m at edco st s o f fu tu re tre at m en t t o b e b etween $1 70 ,00 0 a nd$1 09 ,00 0. Th e Gov ern m en t p res en te d fu rth er ev id en ce t ha t Vi cky rece iv es no ti fic at io n, v iahe r at to rn ey , each ti m e a cri m in al is pro se cu te d fo r po ss es si ng he r im ag e. Afte r th e h eari ng , th e m ag is tra te jud ge als o re vi ewedvi ct im im pa ctst at em en ts fro m

Vicky , herm ot he r, an d h er st ep fat he r whi chde ta il edth e eff ect s o f he r hu m il ia ti on , pai n, an d fe ar fro m kn owl ed ge th atpe op le were v ie win g h er i m ag e. The m ag is tra te jud ge en te reda rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on th atth e d is tri ct co urt o rd er Br an no n t o p ay $3 ,50 0 i n re st itut io n t o Vi cky . Firs t, the m ag is tra te jud ge no te d t ha t re st itut io n was m an da to ry pu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 9 a ndth at Vicky was a“ vi ct im ” as de fin edby the st atut e. The m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d th atVicky ’s st at em en t an d Dr. Gre en ’s tes ti m on y sh owe d t ha t Br an no n’s po ss es si on of h er i m ag e was a pr ox im at e cau se of Vi cky ’s on go in g h arm . Fu rth erm or e, th e m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndDr. Green ’s m ed ic al ex pe ns e es ti m at es to be accu rat e an d re as on ab le . To de te rm in e a rea so nabl e res ti tu ti on am ou nt at tri bu tabl e to Bran no n, t he m ag is tra te jud ge res earc he d 1 7 s im il ar fe de ral res ti tu ti on ord ers ag ai ns t “ en d u se rs ” o f Vic ky’ s i m ag e. The m ag is tra te jud ge fo un d tha t o n a ve rag e Vic ky hadbe enaward ed$2 ,79 9.4 1 p er ca se . The 5m ag is tra te jud ge th enrev ie wedth e Gov ern m en t’s n ot ic e o f 10 0 p rio r ch il d

po rn og rap hy rest itut io n o rd ers award in g t o v ic ti m s an av erag e $ 4,3 21 . Bas edon th es e two av erag es , th e m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d t ha t Br an no n p ay Vicky $3 ,50 0 i n re st itut io n. Ov er Br an no n’s o bjec ti on s, t he di st ric t co urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti onan d o rd eredres ti tu ti on on Ju ly 19, 20 11 . Bran no n the n p erfe ct edth is ap pe al . II . DISCUSSI ON A. The l eg al ity of t he di st ri ct co urt’ s re st itu tio n o rder Bran no n a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin im po si ng res ti tu ti on be cau se itdi d n otho lda res ti tu ti on he ari ng withi n t he 90 -d ay pe rio d p res cri be d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( d) (5 ). The Go ve rn m en t re sp on ds th atpu rs ua ntto Dolan v. Uni te d St at es , __ _ U.S. _

__ _, 1 30 S. Ct. 2 53 3 (2 01 0) , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t l os e au th or it y to im po se res ti tu ti on by con du ct in g ares ti tu ti onhe ari ng m or e th an90 da y s af te r se nt en ci ng . Bran no n re pl ie s t ha t h is cas e is di st in gu is habl e fro m Dol an be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt i n Dol an in fo rm edth e d efen dantat s en te nc in g tha t a res ti tu ti on ord er wo ul d b e fo rth co m in g; th e o nl y qu es ti on to be de te rm in edat t he la te r he ari ng was t he am ou ntof r es ti tu ti on . Howev er, as of t he ti m e o f Bra nn on ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt h adno t d eci de d yet whe th er Br an no n s ho ul d pa y res ti tu ti on . 6W e rev ie w th e le ga li ty of a res ti tu ti on ord er de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu ff , 60 9 F .3d12 40 , 12 47 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Titl e 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 64 (d )(5 ) requi res th at [i]f th e v ic ti m 's l os se s ar e n otasc ert ai nabl e b y th e d at e th atis 10 da y s pr io r to sen te nc in g, t he att orne y forth e Gov ern m en t o r th e p ro ba ti on of fic er s ha ll so in fo rm

th e co urt, an d t he co urt s ha ll seta da te for th e fin al de te rm in at io n o f th e v ic ti m 's l os se s, n otto ex ceed90 da y s af te r se nt en ci ng . In Dol an , th e Supr em e Co urt, i nt erp ret in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 64 (d )(5 ), he ldth atwhen a se nt en ci ng co urt m is se s t he 90 -d ay de ad li ne , th e co urt i s n otde pr iv edof i ts au th or it y to ord er re st itut io n. _

__U.S. at _

__ _, 1 30 S. Ct. at25 39 . Bran no n id en ti fie s a l im it at io n wi th in th e Dol an ho ld in g: a di st ric t co urt “ ret ai ns th e p owe r to ord er re st itut io n – at

lea st wh er e . . . the sen te nc in g c ou rt made cl ea r p ri or

to th e d ea dl in e’s exp ir at io n tha t i t wo uld o rd er res ti tu ti on . . . . ” Id. at__ __ , 13 0 S . Ct . at 2 53 7 (e m

ph as is ad de d) . Whi le th e d is tri ctco urt i n t he in st an t ca se m ad e it cl ear t ha t i t was go in g t o c on du cta he ari ng on Vicky ’s cla im , th e co urt d idno t m ak e itcle ar, p rio r to Jan ua ry 26 , 20 11 , th atitwou ldord er re st itut io n. W it ho utth is li m it in g l an gu ag e in Dol an ’s ho ld in g, a d is tri ctco urt co ul d po te nt ia ll y

pre jud ic e a d efen da ntby del ay in g ares ti tu ti on ord er fo r anin or di na te am ou ntof t im e, wit h n o re ga rdforth e st atut ory de ad li ne ; co ns eque nt ly, a d el ay ed res ti tu ti on ord er co ul d u nf ai rly su rp ris e th e d efen da ntwith afin an ci al ob li ga ti on fo r whi ch he ha d n o p rio r no ti ce athi s s en te nc in g. In de ed , th e Dol an Co urt 7di sc us se d a ndlef t o pe n t he rem ot e p os si bi li ty tha t a d el ay in set ti ng a res ti tu ti on he ari ng co ul d p reju di ce a d efen da ntan d t hr eat enhi s due pro ces s ri gh ts . Id. at

__ __ , 13 0 S . Ct. at25 41 –4 2. Ho wev er, Bra nn onm ak es no arg um en t t ha t t he co urt’s d el ay

ha s p reju di cedhi m

in an y way . Furt he rm or e, Bran no n h adad equa te no ti ce b efo re, dur in g, an d a fte r se nt en ci ng to pre pa re h is de fen se ag ai ns t t he cla im fo r res ti tu ti on . A vic ti m

rep orte d h er cl ai m

forres ti tu ti on ; the PSI n ot edth e cl ai m ; th e se nt en ci ng co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t he is su e an d re ferr editto a m ag is tra te jud ge fo r rec omm en da ti on ; an d t he m ag is tra te jud ge att em pt edto de ci de th e m eri ts of th e cl ai m in a ti m el y

m an ne r. The re le va ntres ti tu ti onst atut e, 18 . U.S.C. § 2 25 9, requi redth e co urt t o a wardres ti tu ti on if i t fo un d t ha t Br an no n c au se d h arm to a vi ct im . Thu s, dur in g t he 90 -d ay st atut ory pe rio d, Br an no n was aware o f th e li ke li ho od , andno t ju stth e p os si bi li ty, of a fo rth co m in g re st itut io n o rd er. Co ns eque nt ly, itis ap pr op ria te , un de r th e fac ts of t hi s ca se , th atwe ex cu se th e di st ric t co urt’s u nt im el y

ord er b ecau se Bran no n n ev ert he le ss ha d n ot ic e o f hi s res ti tu ti on ob li ga ti on an d h e was no t p reju di ced . Mo reo ve r, aft er re ad in g Dol an , we no te po li cy reas on s i n s up po rt o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on th atare al so ap pl ic ab le he re. In Dol an , th e Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t t he st atut ory de ad li ne in 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( d) (5 ) ex is te d t o en co ur ag e th e co urt’s “ sp eed ,” no t t o l im itth e co urt’s jur is di ct io n t o a90 -d ay ti m e 8pe rio d. Dol an , __ _ U.S. at

__

__ , 13 0 S . Ct. at25 38 –3 9. Acco rd in gl y , th e Co urt fo un d tha t “ th e Act ’s effo rts to sec ur e sp eed y de te rm in at io n o f res ti tu ti on is pr im ari ly des ig ne d t o h el p v ic ti m s o f cri m e se cu re p ro m ptres ti tu ti on rathe r th anto pr ov id e d efen da nt s wi th cert ai nt y as t o t he am ou ntof t he ir l iabi li ty.” Id. at__ __ , 13 0 S . Ct. at25 40 . The Co urt re as on edth atvi ct im s s ho ul d n otbe m ad e to go wit ho utres ti tu ti on si m

pl y be cau se th e Gov ern m en t o r th e d is tri ctco urt fa il s t o en su re a t im el y

res ti tu ti on he ari ng . Id. at__ __ , 13 0 S . Ct. at25 40 . Inad di ti on to th es e p ol ic y m ot iv at io ns , th e rec or d h ere s ho ws tha t ci rcu m st an ces be y on d t he di stric t co urt’s co nt ro l l edto th e d el ay of B ran no n’s res ti tu ti on he ari ng . For e xa m pl e, Bran no n was in trans po rt f ro m Virg in iato Geo rg ia , m ak in g h im

un av ai labl e to ap pe ar atth e at te m pt edres ti tu ti on he ari ng on Ja nu ary 18 , 20 11 . Furt he rm or e, th e at to rn ey s ex pr es se d d iff ic ul ty in co nt act in g an d p ro cu rin g i nf

orm at io n fr om

Vicky ’s att orne y . Mos t i m po rta nt ly, aft er J an ua ry 14 , 20 11 , th e m ag is tra te jud ge pro ceed edun de r th e as su m pt io n t ha t Br an no n’s at to rn ey vo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d a ny ob jecti onto anun ti m el y

res ti tu ti on he ari ng . Bec au se Bran no n was no t u nf ai rly preju di ced , bec au se th e res ti tu ti on st atut e ex is ts fo r Vic ky’ s b en efi t an d n otBran no n’s, an d b ecau se th e co urt was de la y edby ci rcu m st an ces be y on d i ts co nt ro l, we af firm th e le ga li ty of th e res ti tu ti on ord er i n sp it e o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s n on co m pl ia nc e wit h 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 64 (d )(5 ). 9Howev er, ev enif t he un ti m el y res ti tu ti on he ari ng co ns ti tu te s re ve rs ib le erro r, we co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t Br an no n’s at to rn ey in vi te d t he di st ric t co urt’s erro r. The re co rdsh ows th atwhen th e p art ie s h el d atel ep ho ni c h eari ng be fo re the m ag is tra te jud ge on Jan ua ry 14 , 20 11 , def

en se co un se l re pr es en te d t ha t he wou ldwaiv e th e requi rem en t t ha t t he res ti tu ti onhe ari ng be he ldwithi n t he 90 - da y pe rio d. Onth is da te , th e d is tri ctco urt h ad12 da y s t o h ol d t he he ari ng in ord er to m eetth e d ead li ne . The m ag is tra te jud ge was n otun m in df ul of t he 90 -d ay requi rem en t; he st at edth athe di d n otwantto “ m es s up b y m is si ng th is 90 -d ay th in g.” [Tr. of J an ua ry

14 , 20 11 Hr’g at 1 8.] Defen se co un se l re pl ie d, “ I won ’t sa y th aty ou m es se d up.” [Id. ] The m ag is tra te jud ge res po nd ed , “ W el l, y eah , bu t y ou ’ll h av e to waiv e it . Cany ou do th at ? ” [Id. ] Afte r th e g ov ern m en t’s co m m en ts , th e m ag is tra te jud ge ask edag ai n, “ W il l you a gr ee i n c as e [the he ari ng ]’ s o ut si de th e 9 0 d ay s? ” [Id. ] Defen se co un se l u ne qu iv oc al ly ans wered y es . Whi le de fen se co un se l s ub se qu en tl y su gg es te d b eg in ni ng th e h eari ng withi n th e 9 0- da y

pe rio d a nd , if n eces sa ry , com pl et in g t he he ari ng ou ts id e th e 9 0- da y pe rio d, h is su gg es ti on in no way ne ga te d h is ass ert io n t ha t h e wou ldwaiv e ob jecti onto anun ti m el y

he ari ng . On J an ua ry

18 , 20 11 , th e m ag is tra te jud ge rei te rat edhi s u nd ers ta nd in g t ha t Bran no n h adwaiv edan y ob jecti on to anun ti m el y

res ti tu ti on he ari ng . Defen se 10co un se l eq ui vo cat ed , saying th athe di d n otreca ll m en ti on in g “ an yth in g abo utth e

ul ti m at e wai ve r.” [R. 9 7 a t 5 .] Howev er, the reco rdfro m Jan ua ry 14 , di sc us se d su pr a , con tra di ct s d efen se co un se l’s m em ory . Mor eo ve r, de fen se co un se l’s Ja nu ary 18 st at em en t i s ambig uo us an d d oe s n otam ou ntto a cl ear wi th dr awal of th e u na m bi gu ou s J an ua ry

14 , 20 11 waiv er.

“ It i s a c ard in al rul e o f ap pe ll at e rev ie w th ata pa rty m ay no t ch al le ng e as erro r a ru li ng or o th er tria l p ro ceed in g i nv it edby tha t p art y .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo ve , 44 9 F .3d11 54 , 11 57 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). “ The do ctrin e o f in vi te d erro r is im

pl ic at edwhen a pa rty induc es or i nv it es th e d is tri ctco urt i nt o m ak in g a n erro r.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sto ne , 13 9 F .3d82 2, 8 38 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (p er cu ria m). Whe n i nv it ederro r is fou ndto ex is t, i t p rev en ts us fro m in vo ki ng th e p la inerro r ru le an d re ve rs in g. Uni te d Sta tes v. Silves tr i , 40 9 F .3d13 11 , 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Here, the m ag is tra te jud ge , aware o f th e ti m e co ns tra in t, re li edon de fen se at to rn ey ’s on -th e-re co rdwaiv er. Itwou ldbe un fai r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt o r th is co urt t o p erm itBran no n’s at to rn ey to rev ers e co ur se aft er ex pl ic it ly w ai vi ng hi s ob jecti onto anun ti m el y

he ari ng . There fo re, ev enif Dol an do es no t ex te ndto Bran no n’s s itua ti on , we con cl ud e th atBran no n i nv it edth e d is tri ctco urt’s erro r. Co ns eque nt ly, th is co urt wi ll no t en te rta in Bran no n’s ar gu m en t t ha t t he di st ric t co urt l ack edau th or ity

to im po se res ti tu ti on .

11B. Pro xi m at e ca us at io n a nd the amount of r es tit uti on

Bran no n a rg ue s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro du ce ev id en ce t ha t h is po ss es si on of Vi cky ’s im ag e p ro xi m at el y cau se d h er h arm . The Go ve rn m en t res po nd s tha t Dr. Gree n’s t es ti m on y de m on st rat edth atVicky su ffer s ps y ch ol og ic al traum a fro m si m pl y kn owi ng th atpe op le li ke Bran no n h av e v ie wed im ag es of h er s ex ua l ab us e. Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r pr ox im at e cau sa ti on ex is ts to supp ort a r es ti tu ti on or de r, we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r. Uni te d Sta te s v. W as hi ng to n , 43 4 F .3d12 65 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fin di ng is cle arl y

erro ne ou s wh ena rev ie w of t he ev id en ce l eav es us “ wit h a de fin it e an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Fos te r , 15 5 F .3d13 29 , 13 31 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). In Uni te d Sta tes v. McDa ni el , 63 1 F.3 d 1 20 4, 1 20 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) , we hel d tha t a d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in co nc lu di ng th atanen d u se r of Vicky ’s im ag e was a pr ox im at e cau se of Vi cky ’s em ot io na l t rau m a. Fo r th e rea so ns art ic ul at edin McDa ni el , andbe cau se Bran no n can no t s ho w cle ar erro r, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Br an no n pr ox im at el y

cau se d h arm

to Vicky . Alt ern at iv el y , Bran no n a rg ue s t ha t the co urt erredin cal cu la ti ng an ap pr op ria te am ou ntof r es ti tu ti on . Bran no n c on te nd s t ha t Vi cky wil l u lt im at el y 12en

joy a win df al l b ecau se so m an y

de fen da nt s l ik e h im se lf h av e b een , or wi ll be , or de redto pa y

res ti tu ti on to Vicky . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in g as to th e sp eci fic am ou ntof r es ti tu ti on for cle ar erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Fu tr el l , 20 9 F .3d12 86 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Even th ou gh th e d et erm in at io n o f th e res ti tu ti on am ou ntis “ anin ex actsci en ce,” u nd er the Man da to ry Vict im Res ti tu ti on Act, t he di st ric t co urt i s d ire ct edto “ en ga ge in anex pe di en t an d re as on ab le de te rm in at io n o f ap pr op ria te res ti tu ti on by reso lv in g u nc ert ai nt ie s wi th a vi ew to wardach ie vi ng fai rn es s t o t he vi ct im .” Huf f , 60 9 F .3dat 1 24 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . The d is tri ctco urt i s re qu ire d t o e xp la in it s fi nd in gs with

“ su ffi ci en t cl ari ty” to en ab le us to pe rfo rm ou r func ti on on ap pe ll at e rev ie w. Id . Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt p ro vi de d areas on edex pl an at io n fo r it s $ 3,5 00 res ti tu ti on award , andbe cau se th e co urt ac co un te d fo r th e li ke li ho odth atot he r de fen da nt s wo ul d b e o rd eredto m ak e res ti tu ti onto Vicky inth e fu tu re, we aff

irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s re st itut io n c al cu la ti on . II I. CONCLUS IO N Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we h ol d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in im po si ng res ti tu ti on aft er m is si ng th e 9 0 d ay res ti tu ti on he ari ng de ad li ne requi red by 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( d) (5 ). Furth erm or e, we ho ldth atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g p ro xi m at e cau se of h arm to a vi ct im

or i n d et erm in in g a n 13ap pr op ria te res ti tu ti on award . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er o f res ti tu ti on . AFFIR MED. 1

Appellant’s motion to file Reply Brief out-of

-time is GR

ANTED. 1 14