NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. RICHARD CHARLES SAARI,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 17-30074 D.C. No. 6:16-cr-00001-CCL-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal fromthe United States District Court for the District of Montana Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Subm itted August 30, 2018

Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Richard Saari pled guilty to receipt of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). He was ordered to pay restitution to the victim ’s m other pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259 and a $5,000 assessm e nt under the Justice for Victim s of Trafficking Act (JVTA). Saari argues that the district court’s restitution award was 

# FILED
SEP 11 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.in error because there is no evidence that his conduct was the direct or proxim ate

cause of the m other’s losses. He also asks the court to reverse the district court’s finding that he is non-indigent for purposes of the JVTA. For the following reasons, we reverse the District Court’s restitution calculation as inconsistent with the apportionm ent analysis adopted in Paroline v. United States , 572 U.S. 434 (2014), and rem and for further proceedings consistent with that analysis. We affirm the District Court’s finding of indigency. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, persons who com m it certain sex offenses are liable for the “full am ount of the victim ’s losses,” including costs incurred by “the legal guardian of [a m inor] victim ” for her own “physical, psychiatric, or psychological care.” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(a), (b)(3)(A), (c). Here, the victim ’s m other requested restitution in the am ount of $20,857.32 for past and future therapy costs. She reached that figure by adding $3,757.32 in past m edical and counseling costs to projected m edical and counseling expenses over a five-year period—the am ount of future therapy recom m ended by her therapist. She calculated her future counseling costs based solely on her $60/week co-pay, not the full cost of the future counseling session. The district court found that “[t] he m other did have a preexisting condition. But that has been exacerbated by the defendant’s crim inal

2conduct.” It then awarded the victim ’s m other the full $20,857.32 she sought in

restitution. In Paroline v. United States , 572 U.S. 434 (2014), the Suprem e Court held that “a court applying § 2259 should order restitution in an am ount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim ’s general losses.” Id. at 458. Paroline was concerned with the exacerbated harm caused by multiple viewers of the sam e pornographic im a ge. Id. a t 441. But the
sam e principle applies here where Saari’s actions have exacerbated the m other’s pre-existing traum a . The District Court recognized that Saari’s conduct only exacerbated a pre-existing condition, but it did not engage in the apportionm ent analysis that Paroline requires. On rem and, the District Court should “assess as best it can fromavailable evidence the significance of the individual defendant’s conduct in light of the broader causal process that produced the victim ’s losses,” id. at 459, and award a proportional am ount in restitution. Section 2259(b)(1) requires a court to order restitution for “the full am ount of the victim ’s losses.” (em phasis added). The District Court thus m ay consider the full cost of the
m other’s future counseling, and not just her future co-pays, when calculating her general losses as part of the apportionm ent analysis.

3With regard to the JVTA assessm ent, Saari has provided no credible

argum ent that the District Court’s finding of indigence was clearly erroneous or that its m ethod of determ ining indigence was legally insufficient. We VACATE the District Court’s restitution award and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. We AFFIRM the District Court’s judgm e nt as to the $5,000 JVTA award.

VACATED and REMANDED in part. AFFIRMED in part.

4