# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 27 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Ro be rt M . Fas t

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Vick y , Chi ld Po rn og rap hy Victi m

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l In te re st ed

pa rt y - App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 27 69

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

In re: Vick y , Chi ld Po rn og rap hy Victi m

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Nov em be r 15 , 20 12
Fil ed : M arch 11 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BENTON, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ro be rt M

. F a s t pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of rece iv in g an d di st rib ut in g ch il d

po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t or de red hi m 1

to pa y $3 ,33 3 res ti tu ti on to Vick y – th e ps eu do nym fo r th e ch il d- po rn og rap hy vi ct im

who se im ag es were on Fas t’s co m pu te r – un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 59

. Vick y ch al le ng es

th e res ti tu ti on award by di rect ap pe al an d in a pe ti ti on fo r m a n da m us

. Sh e arg ue s 2

th at Fas t ne ed no t pr ox im at el y cau se th e lo ss es de fin ed in su bs ect io ns 22 59 (b )(3 )(A)

th ro ug h (E) to be li ab le fo r th em , a nd th at th e di st ric t co ur t m is i n t erp ret ed th e “ fu ll

am ou nt of [h er] lo ss es ” un de r se ct io n 22 59 ( b ) ( 1 )

. Bec au se sh e la ck s st an di ng as a

no np art y to br in g a di rect ap pe al

, th is co ur t gr an ts th e m ot io ns to di sm is s by Fas t an d

th e go ve rn m en t. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on ov er he r m an da m us p e t it io n un de r th e Cri m e

Vict im s’ Ri gh ts Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 37 71 (d )(3 ), th is co ur t de ni es he r pe ti ti on

.

I.

The CVRA gr an ts cri m e vi ct im s, in cl ud in g Vick y , th e “ rig ht to fu ll an d ti m el y

res ti tu ti on as pr ov id ed in la w.” 18 U.S.C. § 37 71 (a )(6 )

. The di st ric t co ur t m us t or de r

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nebr as ka

.

Thi s co ur t gr an te d Vick y ’s req ue st to waiv e th e 72 -h ou r st at ut or y de ad li ne fo r 2

de ci di ng he r m an da m

us pe ti ti on

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 37 71 (d)( 3)

.

-2

-res ti tu ti on

. Id

. § 2 25 9( a)

, (b)(4 )(A) . “ The la ng ua ge of 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 refl ect s a

br oa d r e st it ut io na ry pu rp os e.” In re Am y Unk no wn , 70 1 F.3 d 74 9, 76 0 (5 th Ci r.

20 12 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) ; ac co rd Unit ed St at es v. Ju li an , 24 2 F.3 d 12 45

, 12 47 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 01 ). “ Res ti tu ti on ” is th e “ fu ll am ou nt of th e vi ct im ’s lo ss es as

de te rm in ed by t h e c o ur t,” in cl ud in g th e co st s en um erat ed in su bs ect io ns

22 59 (b )(3 )(A) th ro ug h (F). 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 (b)( 1)

, (3 )

. The di st ric t co ur t res ol ve s

“ [a]ny di sp ut e as to th e pr op er am ou nt or type of res ti tu ti on

. . . by th e pr ep on de ran ce

of th e ev id en ce.” Id

. § 36 64 (e)

. The go ve rn m en t be ars th e “ bu rd en of de m on st rat in g

th e am ou nt of t he lo ss su st ai ne d b y a vi ct im as a res ul t o f th e o ffen se .” Id

.

V i c k y do cu m en ts $1 ,22 4,6 97 .04 in lo ss es fro m he r se xu al ab us e an d th e

di st rib ut io n of th e po rn og rap hi c im ag es

. Befo re Fas t’s se nt en ci ng , sh e so ug ht

$9 5 2

, 7 59 .81 res ti tu ti on (h av in g pr ev io us ly co ll ect ed $2 71 ,93 7.2 3 fro m ot he r

de fen da nt s)

. The go ve rn m en t in it ia ll y req ue st ed “ at le as t $1 0,0 00 ” res ti tu ti on

. The

di st ric t cou rt rul ed th at Fas t need no t hav e pr ox im at el y cau se d th e lo ss es de fin ed in

su bs ect io ns 22 59 (b )(3 )(A) thr ou gh (E) to be li ab le fo r th em

. Unit ed St at es v. Fa st

, 82 0 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 08

, 10 10 (D. Neb

. 20 11 ). The c ou rt i ni ti al ly ord ered Fas t t o pay
$ 1 9,8 63 .84 res ti tu ti on

. Id

. On ap pe al

, th e go ve rn m en t ag reed wit h Fas t th at

pr ox im at e cau se is req ui red

. Thi s cou rt rem an de d to th e di st ric t cou rt to reco ns id er

Vick y ’s res ti tu ti on award (d en y in g he r m ot io n to in te rv en e as m oo t). Unit ed St at es

v. Fa st , No. 1 1- 34 55 , at * 1 (8 th Cir . May 15 , 20 12 ).

On rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed “ th at pr ox im at e cau se is req ui red fo r

each el em en t of res ti tu ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 .” Unit ed St at es v. Fa st

, 87 6 F. 3

Su pp

. 2d 10 87

, 10 88 (D. Neb

. 20 12 ). It fo u n d F a s t l i a b le fo r lo ss es accr ue d aft er

J u n e 2 5

, 20 10
— whe n he be ga n co m m it ti ng th e cri m e. Id

. at 10 89

. The di st ric t

co ur t co nc lu de d th at Fas t “ pr ox im at el y cau se d ha rm to ‘V ic ky’ th at di rect ly res ul te d

On rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed as un ti m el y Vick y ’s m ot io n to in te rv en e. 3

Sh e d oe s n ot ap pe al th at rul in g.

-3

-i n c o m

pe ns ab le in

jury an d da m ag e to he r in th e su m of $3 ,33 3.” Id

. at 10 90

. Thi s

am ou nt co ns is te d of “ $2 ,50 0 fo r m ed ic al an d ps y ch ia tri c care , oc cu pa ti on al th erap y ,

an d lo st in co m e un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 (b )(3 )(A), (B), & (D),” an d $8 33 fo r “ at to rn ey

fees an d c os ts un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 9( b) (3 )(E).” Id

. at 1 08 8.

II.

Fas t an d th e go ve rn m en t m ov e to di sm is s Vick y ’s di rect ap pe al o f th e

res ti tu ti on or de r, arg ui ng th at sh e la ck s st an di ng be cau se sh e is no t a pa rty to th e cas e.

“ St an di ng is a fu nd am en ta l el em en t o f fed eral co ur t juri sd ic ti on .” Cur ti s v. Ci ty of

Des Mo in es , 9 95 F.2 d 12 5, 12 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ), ci ti ng Si er ra Cl ub v

. M o rt on , 4 05

U.S. 72 7, 73 2 (1 97 2)

. Tho se fai li ng to “ in te rv en e or ot he rwis e at ta in pa rty st at us m ay

no t ap pe al a di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t.” Id

. (ci t a t i o n o mi t te d)

. “ [A]ll Co ur ts of
App eal s to ha ve ad dr es se d th is is su e ha ve co nc lu de d th at no np art ie s can no t di rect ly

ap pe al a res ti tu ti on or de r en te red ag ai ns t a cri m in al de fen d a n t

. ” Unit ed St at es v.

St oe rr , 69 5 F.3 d 27 1, 27 7 (3 d Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) ; s e e In re Am y

Unk no wn , 7 01 F.3 d at 75 6; Unit ed St at es v. Al ca te l-Lu cent Fr an ce, SA , 68 8 F .3d

13 01

, 13 07 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 12 ) (p er cu ria m ); Unit ed St at es v. Mo nz el

, 64 1 F.3 d 52 8, 54 2
(D.C. Ci r.), cer t. de ni ed

, 13 2 S. Ct

. 75 6 (2 01 1) ; Unit ed St at es v. Ag ui rr e-Go nz al

ez , 59 7 F.3 d 46 , 5 3- 55 (1 st Ci r. 20 10 ); In re Ack er , 5 96 F.3 d 37 0, 37 3 ( 6t h Ci r. 20 10 )
(p er cu ria m ); Unit

ed St at es v. Hunt er , 54 8 F.3 d 13 08

, 13 15 -1 6 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 08 );

Unit ed S t a t e s v. Unit

ed Sec. Sa v. Ba nk

, 39 4 F.3 d 56 4, 56 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (p er

cu ria m ); Unit

ed St at es v. Mi nd

el

, 80 F.3 d 39 4, 39 8 (9 th Ci r. 19 96 ); Unit ed St at es v.

Grun dh oe

fer

, 91 6 F.2 d 78 8, 79 3 (2 d Ci r. 19 90 ); se e al so Unit ed St at es v. Lar an et

a , 70 0 F.3 d 98 3, 98 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (fi nd in g “ no qu arre l” wit h th e res ul t th at “ a cri m e

vi ct im can no t ap pe al fro m a de ni al of res ti tu ti on in a cri m in al cas e be cau se th e vi ct im

is no t a p art y ”).

Vick y di d no t su cces sf

ul ly in te rv en e, an d th e CVRA doe s no t gran t her pa rty

st at us

. The CVRA gr an ts th e go ver nme nt th e rig ht to as se rt a vi ct im ’s rig ht s on di rect

-4

-ap pe al

, 18 U.S.C. § 37 71 (d)( 4)

, an d de ta il s whe n a v ic ti m m ay re-o pe n a pl ea or

se nt en ce th ro ug h a m ot io n , id

. § 37 71 (d)( 5) ; se e Hunt er , 54 8 F.3 d at 13 15 -1 6
(“ [Sec ti on 37 71 (d )(5 )] m ak es no m en ti on of a di rect ap pe al .”). The CVRA gr an ts a

vi ct im th e rig ht to pe ti ti on fo r m an da m us

. 18 U.S.C. § 37 71 (d)( 3)

. “ Not hi ng in th is

ch ap te r sh al l be co ns tru ed to im pa ir th e pr os ecu to ria l di sc ret i o n o f t h e Att or ne y

G en eral or an y of

fic er un de r hi s di rect io n.” Id

. § 37 71 (d)( 6)

. All owi ng vi ct ims t o

ap pe al wou ld “ ero de th e CVRA’s at te m pt to pr es erv e th e Gov ern m en t’s di sc ret io n.”

In re Unk no wn , 70 1 F.3 d at 75 7; ac co rd Hunt er , 54 8 F.3 d at 13 16

. “ Tha t Co ng res s

in cl ud ed th es e p ro vi si on s b ut di d no t pr ov id e fo r di rect ap pe al s by crim e v ic ti m s i s

st ro ng ev id en ce tha t it di d no t in te nd to au th or iz e su ch ap pe al s.” Mo nz el

, 64 1 F.3d

a t 5 4 2 (em

ph as is in or ig in al ) (“ [T]he CVRA’s ‘carefu ll y craf te d an d de ta il e d

en fo rcem en t sc he m e pr ov id es st ro ng ev id en ce th at Co ng res s di d no t in te nd to

au th or iz e ot he r rem ed ie s th at it si m pl y for go t t o i nc or

po rat e ex pr es sl y .’ ” (em

ph as is

in ori gi na l), qu ot in g

Mer te ns v. Hewi tt

As so cs

. , 50 8 U.S. 2 48 , 25 4 (1 99 3) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). The C VRA do es no t al lo w Vick y to ap pe al di rect ly.

Vick y in vo ke s 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

. Bu t “ § 12 91 ’s br oa d juri sd ic ti on al gr an t do es

no t pe rm it us to ig no re th e req ui rem en t th at th e ap pe ll an t ha ve st an di ng to ap pe al .”

St oe rr , 69 5 F.3 d at 27 7 n.5 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Vick y ci te s se ve ral cas es whe re co ur ts

ha ve he ard no n- pa rty ap pe al s. Non e, ex cep t Uni te d St at es v. Ko ne s , 77 F.3 d 66

, 68
(3 d Cir. 19 96 ), al lo wed a no n- pa rty ap pe al th at wou ld al te r a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce.

Se e Mo nz el

, 64 1 F.3 d at 54 2- 43

. A cri m in al res ti tu ti on or de r is pa rt of a de fen da nt ’s

se nt en ce. Id

. at 5 41 ; se e Unit

ed Sec. Sa v. Ba nk , 39 4 F .3d at 56 7. “ A cri m e v ic ti m

do es no t ha ve st an di ng to ap pe al a di st ric t co ur t’s res ti tu ti on or de r.” Unit ed Sec. Sa v.

B an k at 56 7; Ag ui rr e-Go nz al ez , 59 7 F.3 d at 54 (“ [C]rim e vi ct im s ha ve no rig ht to

di rect ly app eal a de fen da nt ’s cri m in al sen te nc e . . . .”).

In Ko ne s , “ a pu rp or te d vi ct im so ug ht to ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on

th at sh e was no t en ti tl ed to res ti tu ti on .” St oe rr , 69 5 F.3 d at 27 7 n.5

, ci ti ng Ko nes , 77

F.3 d at 68

. “ W it ho ut ad dr es si ng th e pu rp or te d vi ct im ’s st an di ng to ap pe al

, [th e Thi rd

-5

-Ci rcu it ] no te d in on e se nt en ce th at [ i t ] ha d ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §

12 91 .” Id

. , ci ti ng Ko nes , 77 F.3 d at 68

. The Thi rd Ci rcu it la te r he ld th at it was no t

“ bo un d by th e ba ld juri sd ic ti on al st at em en t in Ko ne s ” — a “ ‘driv e-b y juri sd ic ti on al

ru li ng [ ], ’ in whi ch juri sd ic ti on ‘ha[s ] be en as su m ed by th e pa rti es , an d

. . . as su m ed

wit ho ut di sc us si on b y t h e [c]ou rt,’ do es no t crea te bi nd in g pr eced en t.” Id

. (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ), qu ot in g St eel Co

. v. Ci ti

ze ns fo r a Bet

te r Env’ t

, 52 3 U.S. 83

, 91 (19 98 ); se e Mo nz el , 64 1 F .3d at 5 41 n.1 3.

In th e Cu rt is cas e, th is co ur t al lo wed no np art ie s to ap pe al be cau se th ey ha d “ an

in te res t in th e cau se li ti ga te d an d pa rti ci pa te d in th e pr oc eed in gs act iv el y en ou gh to

m ak e [th em ] pr iv y to th e reco rd

. . . [ev en th ou gh ] [th ey ] w[ere ] no t na m e d in th e

c o mp l a i n t an d di d no t in te rv en e.” Cur ti s , 99 5 F.2 d at 12 8 (s eco nd al te rat io n i n

or ig in a l ) (o m is si on in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Cu rt is , un li ke he re, was a ci vi l ca se an d d id no t al te r th e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e.

Vick y arg ue s th at be cau se th e CVRA gr an ts vi ct im s th e “ rig ht ” to res ti tu ti on ,

se e 18 U.S.C. § 37 71 (a )(6 )

, sh e ha s an “ in jury” th at gi ve s he r st an di ng to ap pe al

. But

se e Unit ed Sec. Sa v. Ba nk

, 39 4 F.3 d at 56 7 (“ The di rect

, di st in ct

, an d pa lp ab le in jury

in a cri m in al se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in g pl ai nl y fal ls on ly on th e de fen da nt who is be in g

se nt en ced .”). Bu t g ran ti ng vi ct im s a r ig ht to res ti tu ti on ne it he r m ak es th em a pa rty

to th e cas e, no r gi ve s th em a rig ht to ap pe al

. Se e, e.g

. , Ag ui rr e-Go nz al ez , 59 7 F.3d

at 53 (“ Not wit hs ta nd in g th e rig ht s refl ect ed in th e res ti tu ti on st at ut es , cri m e vi ct im s

are no t pa rti es to a cri m in al se nt en ci ng pr oc e e d i n g

. . . [ an d] m ay no t ap pe al a

de fen da nt ’s cri m in al se nt en ce.” (in te rn al ci ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on s om it te d) ). “ [T]he

CVRA ex pr es sl y id en ti fie s th e av en ue s of ap pe ll at e rev ie w of a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al

of res ti tu ti on

. . . an d ne it he r of th o s e a ve nu es en ti tl es a cri m e vi ct im to di rect

a p p eal .” Al

ca te l-Lu cent Fr an ce, SA

, 68 8 F.3 d at 13 06 ; se e al so Tra ns am e r i c a

Mo rt g. Ad vi so rs , In c. (TAMA

) v. Lewi s , 44 4 U.S. 11

, 19 (1 97 9) (“ [W] he re a st at ut e

ex pr es sl y pr ov id es a pa rti cu la r rem ed y or rem ed ie s, a co ur t m us t be ch ary of read in g

ot he rs in to it .”); se e al

so Ag ui rr e-Go nz al

ez , 5 97 F.3 d at 54 (“ The Fed eral Ru le s of

-6

-Ci vi l Pro ced ur e al lo w no n- pa rti es to in te rv en e to as se rt th ei r ri g h ts

. The Fed eral

Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e co nt ai n no co m pa rab le pr ov is io n.” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ).

Vick y ci te s ad di ti on al cas es whe re a no n- pa rty cri m e vi ct im was al lo wed to

ap pe al

. Se e Unit

ed St at es v. Y ie ld in g , 65 7 F.3 d 72 2, 72 6 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) 4

(h ol di ng th e no np art y ha d “ st an di ng to ap pe al ” be cau se “ it [was ] bo un d or ad ve rs el y

a ffec te d by an in

jun ct io n” ); In re Si le r , 57 1 F.3 d 60 4, 60 8- 09 (6 th Ci r. 20 0 9 )
(al lo win g no np art ie s to ap pe al th e us e of a pr es en t e n ci ng rep or t in a ci vi l su it );

Unit ed Sta te s v. Per ry , 36 0 F .3d 51 9, 5 23 -2 4 (6 th Cir . 20 04 ) (al lo win g a no n- pa rty

vi ct im to ap pe al an o r d e r va cat in g a li en se cu rin g he r res ti tu ti on award ); Doe v.

Unit ed St at es , 66 6 F.2 d 43

, 45

- 4 6 ( 4 t h Ci r. 19 81 ) (al lo win g a no n- pa rty vi ct im to

ap pe al th e us e of se xu al hi st or y ev id en ce). “ Bu t no ne of th e cas es sh e ci te s in vo lv ed

a req ue st by a vi ct im to al te r a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce.” Se e Mo nz el

, 64 1 F.3 d at 54 3;

ac co rd Ag ui rr e-Go nz al

ez , 59 7 F .3d at 5 4; Hunt

er , 54 8 F .3d at 1 31 4.

Vick y ci te s se ve ral cas es th at al lo w e d ot he r no np art ie s to ap pe al in cri m in al

cas es

. Se e Unit

ed St at es v. Ant ar , 38 F.3 d 13 48 ,13 55 -5 6 (3 d Ci r. 19 94 ) (p erm it ti ng

th e pr es s to ap pe a l a di st ric t co ur t or de r se al in g a vo ir di re tra ns cri pt ); In re

Sub po ena to Test

ify Befo re Gra nd Ju ry Dir ect ed to Cus to di an of

Rec or ds

, 86 4 F.2 d

15 59

, 15 61 (1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 9) (al lo win g th e pr es s to ap pe al th e sc op e of a cl os ur e

or de r); Ant

ho ny v. Unit

ed St at es , 66 7 F.2 d 87 0, 87 8 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 8 2 ) ( a l l o win g

Vick y al so ci te s a le tt er fro m Sen at or Jo n Ky l to th e U.S. Ju st ic e Dep art m en t, 4

s t a ti ng th at th e CVRA was “ no t in te nd ed to bl oc k cri m e vi ct im s fro m ta k i n g a n

or di na ry ap pe al fro m an ad ve rs e de ci si on affe ct in g th ei r r i g h t s (s uc h as a de ci si on de nyin g res ti tu ti on ) un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 2 9 1

. ” Lett er fro m Sena to r Jo n Ky l to
Atto rney Gen

. Eri c Ho l d e r ( J u n e 6, 20 11 ), re pr in te d in 15 7 Con g. Rec. S3 60 9 (J un e 8, 20 11 ). St at em en ts m ad e aft er a st at ut e’s en act m en t are “ no t a le gi ti m at e to ol
of st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n.” Br ues ewi tz v. Wye th LLC

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 10 68

, 10 81 (2 01 1) ;

se e St oe rr , 69 5 F.3 d at 28 0 n.7 (“ [A] st at em en t by an in di vi du al s e n a t o r do es no t
‘am en d th e cl ear an d un am bi gu ou s la n g ua ge of a st at ut e.’” (q uo ti ng Ba rn ha rt v. Si gm on Co al

Co

. , 53 4 U.S. 4 38 , 45 7 (2 00 2) )).

-7

-ap pe al of di sc ov ery ru li ng s) ; Unit ed St at es v. Hub ba rd

, 65 0 F.2 d 29 3, 31 4 (D.C. Ci r.

1 9 80 ) (al lo win g ap pe al of an or de r un se al in g do cu m en ts fo un d du rin g a se arch );

U ni te d St at es v. Br ig gs , 51 4 F.2 d 79 4, 79 9 (5 th Ci r. 19 74 ) (ex erci si ng juri sd i c t i o n

ov er an ap pe al by un in di ct ed co -co ns pi rat or s ch al le ng in g an or de r refu si ng to st rik e

th ei r na m es fro m th e i n di ct m en t). The se “ ap pe al s al l rel at ed to sp eci fic tri al is su es

an d di d no t di st ur b a fin al jud gm en t

. ” H u n t e r , 54 8 F.3 d at 13 14 ; se e In re Am y

Unk no wn , 70 1 F.3 d at 75 6 (“ [The se cas es ] al lo wed n o n

- p a r t i e s to ap pe al di sc ret e

pr e-t ria l is su es

. . . un rel at ed to th e m eri ts of th e cri m in al cas es fro m whi c h t h e y

aro se .” (ci ta ti on s o m it ed )).

Vick y cl ai m s th at juri sd ic ti on is no ne th el es s pr op er un de r th e co ll at eral or de r

do ct rin e. Se e Mo ha wk In du st ri es , In c. v. Ca rp ent

er , 13 0 S. Ct

. 59 9, 60 5 (2 00 9)

.

“ [U]nde r th e co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e, pr ejud gm en t ap pe ll at e rev ie w is al lo wed in a

cri m in al cas e f

o r t ria l co ur t or de rs whi ch [(1 )] co nc lu si ve ly d et erm in e th e di sp ut ed

qu es ti on , [(2 )] res ol ve an im po rta nt is su e co m

pl et el y se pa rat e fro m th e m eri ts of th e

act io n, an d [(3 )] are effe ct iv el y un rev ie wab le on ap pe al fro m fin al jud gm en t.” Unit ed

St at es v. Iv or y , 29 F.3 d 13 07

, 13 11 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). Sh e fai ls th e se co nd pr on g

“ be cau se th e is su e of res ti tu ti on is pa rt an d pa rcel of th e cri m in al se nt en ce.” Al ca te lLucent Fr an ce, AS

, 68 8 F.3 d at 13 05 n.1

. Sh e al so fai ls th e th ird pr on g be cau se th e

CVRA pe rm it s th e go ve rn m en t t o ap pe al (an d, as di sc us se d be lo w, al lo ws he r to

pe ti ti on fo r m an da m

us ). Se e 18 U.S.C. § 37 71 (d)( 3 )

- (4 )

. Bec au se Vick y la ck s

st an di ng , th e m ot io ns to di sm is s he r di rect ap pe al are gr an te d. Sh e m ay pr oc eed on ly
by m an da m

us

. Id

. § 3 77 1( d)(3 )

.

III.

Acco rd in g to Fas t an d th e go ve rn m en t, th e tra di ti on al st an da rd fo r m an da m us

ap pl ie s, req ui rin g Vick y to sh ow th at (1 ) sh e la ck s “ ad eq ua te al te rn at iv e m ean s” to

ob ta in rel ie f, (2 ) he r rig ht to “ is su an ce of th e writ is cl ear an d in di sp ut ab le ,” an d (3 )

“ th e writ is ap pr op ria te un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Chen ey v. U.S. Dis t. Co ur t fo r

-8

-D i

s t

. of Co lu m bi a , 54 2 U.S. 36 7, 38 0- 81 (2 00 4) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s, ci ta ti on s, an d

in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; Kr ed it ver ei n de r Ba nk Aus tr ia Cr ed it an st al t für

Nied er ös te rr ei ch und Ber

ge nl an d v. Neje zc hl

eb a , 47 7 F.3 d 94 2, 94 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ),

ci ti ng Ma ll

ar d v. U.S. Dis t

. C t

. f o r th e Dis t. of Io wa , 49 0 U.S. 29 6, 30 9 (1 98 9)

. Vick y urg es th is co ur t t o a pp ly the st an da rd of r ev ie w for a di rect ap pe al

.

The CVRA st at es :

If th e di st ric t co ur t de ni es th e rel ie f so ug ht

, th e m ov an t m ay pe ti ti on th e

co ur t of ap pe al s fo r a writ of m an da m us

. The co ur t of ap pe al s m ay is su e th e w r i t on th e or de r of a si ng le jud ge

. . . . The co ur t of ap pe al s sh al l

ta ke up an d de ci de su ch ap pl ic at io n fo rth wit h wit hi n 72 ho ur s aft er th e

pe ti ti o n ha s be en fil ed

. . . . If th e co ur t of ap pe al s de ni es th e rel ie f

so ug ht

, th e reas on s fo r th e de ni al sh al l be cl earl y st at ed on th e reco rd in
a wri tt en op in io n.

18 U.S.C. § 37 71 (d)( 3)

. Tha t a co ur t m us t “ ta ke up an d dec id e” the pe ti ti on wit hi n

72 ho ur s “ sa y s no th in g ab ou t th e st an da rd of rev ie w.” Mo nz el

, 64 1 F.3 d at 53 3- 34 ;

ac co rd In re Am

y Unk no wn , 70 1 F.3 d at 75 8 n.6

. Rat he r, “ [t]he ve ry sh or t ti m el in e

in whi ch ap pe ll at e co ur ts m us t act

, an d th e fact th at a si ng le ci rcu it jud ge m ay ru le on

a pe ti ti on , co nf

irm th e co nc lu si on th at Co ng res s in te nd ed ” th e tra di ti on al st an da rd fo r

m an da m us to ap pl y

. In re Am

y Unk no wn , 70 1 F.3 d at 75 8; In re Ant ro bu s , 51 9 F.3 d

11 23

, 11 30 (1 0t h Cir. 20 08 ) (“ It se em s un li ke ly th at Co ng res s wou ld ha ve in te nd ed

de no vo rev ie w in 72 ho ur s o f no ve l an d c om pl ex leg al qu es ti on s . . . .”).

“ Tha t Co ng res s cal le d fo r ‘m an da m us ’ st ro ng ly su gg es t s i t wan te d

‘m an da m us .’ ” Mo nz el

, 64 1 F.3 d at 53 3, ci ti ng Mo ri ss et te v. Unit ed St at es , 34 2 U.S.

24 6, 26 3 (19 52 ); In re Ack er , 59 6 F.3d at 37 2. Had Co ng res s in te nd ed an or di na ry

ap pe ll at e st an da rd of rev ie w, it co ul d ha ve gi ve n vi ct im s a rig ht to di rect ap pe al

. Se e

In re Ant ro bu s , 51 9 F.3 d at 11 29

, ci ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 37 7 1 ( d ) ( 4 )

. “ Tha t Co ng res s

ex pr es sl y pr ov id ed fo r ‘m an da m us ’ in § 37 71 (d )(3 ) bu t or di na ry ap pe ll at e rev ie w in

-9

-§ 37 71 (d )(4 ) in vo ke s ‘ th e us ua l rul e th at whe n th e le gi sl at ur e us es cert ai n lan gu ag e

in on e pa rt of th e st at ut e an d di ffer en t la ng ua ge in an ot he r , t he co ur t as su m es

di ffer en t m ean in gs were in te nd ed .’ ” M on ze l

, 64 1 F.3 d at 53 3, qu ot in g So sa v.

Al va re z- Ma cha in , 54 2 U.S. 6 92 , 71 1 n .9 (2 00 4)

.

Vick y ar g u e s t h at ap pl y in g th e tra di ti on al st an da rd fo r m an da m us ren de rs

su pe rfl uo us th e rig ht to pe ti ti on fo r m an da m us un de r th e CVRA, be cau se th e Al l

W rit s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 16 51

, al read y gr an ts th at rig ht

. Bu t th e CVRA, un li ke th e All

W rit s Act, req ui res th e co ur t to “ ta ke up an d de ci de ” th e pe ti ti on wit hi n 72 ho ur s an d

to is su e a “ writ te n op in io n” if it de ni es rel ie f. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 37 71 (d)( 3)

. Thu s, th e

CVRA affo rd s vi ct im s “ m or e rig ht s t ha n th ey wou ld ot he rwis e ha ve .” In re

Ant ro bu s , 51 9 F .3d at 1 12 9- 30

.

V i c k y c l ai m s fo ur ci rcu it s su pp or t he r po si ti on

. W it h li tt le di sc us si on , th e

Seco nd Ci rcu it op in ed

, “ It is cl ear

. . . th at a pe ti ti on er se ek in g rel ie f pu rs ua nt to th e [CVRA’s] m an da m

us pr ov is io n

. . . ne ed no t ov erco m e th e hu rd le s typic al ly face d by

a pe ti ti on er

. . . .” In re W.R. Huff A s s e t M g m t. Co

., LLC

, 40 9 F.3 d 55 5, 56 2 (2 d

Ci r. 20 05 ). The Nin th Ci rcu it st at ed

, “ The CVRA crea te s a un iq ue reg im e th at do es , in fact

, co nt em

pl at e ro ut in e in te rlo cu to ry rev ie w of d is tri ct co ur t deci si on s den y in g rig ht s as se rte d un de r th e st at ut e.” Kenn a v. U.S. Dis t. Co ur t fo r C.D. Ca l.

, 43 5 F.3 d

10 11

, 10 17 (9 th Ci r. 20 06 ). W it ho ut ne ed in g to reac h th e is su e, th e Th i r d Ci rcu it

co m m en te d th at “ m an da m

us rel ie f is av ai la bl e un de r a di ffer en t, an d le ss de m an di ng ,
st an da rd un de r 18 U.S.C. § 37 71 in th e ap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ces .” In re Wa ls h

, 22 9

Fed

. App x. 58 , 60 (3d Ci r. 20 07 ) (p er curi am ) (u np ub li sh ed ). The Elev en th Ci rcu it

si m pl y gr an te d th e writ wit ho ut di sc us si ng an y st an da rd

. Se e In re St ewa rt

, 55 2 F.3 d

12 85

, 12 88 -8 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ). But se e In re St ewa rt

, 64 1 F.3 d 12 71

, 1 2 7 4

- 7 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (q ue st io ni ng th e pr io r ru li ng ). Th e s e

de ci si on s, la ck in g de ta il ed an al y si s, are un pe rs ua si ve

. Se e In re Am y Unk no wn , 70 1

F.3 d at 75 8 n

. 6 (“ The la ck of reas on in g

. . . f ai ls to co nv in ce us th at an y th in g ot he r

th an tra di ti on al m an da m

us st an da rd s [ap pl y ]. ”); I n r e A n t r ob us , 51 9 F.3 d at 11 28

-1 0-(“ W it h res pe ct to ou r si st er ci rcu it s, an d aware of th e ti m e pr es su res un de r whi ch th ey

op erat ed

, we se e no th in g in th ei r op in io ns ex pl ai ni ng why Co ng res s ch os e to us e th e

wor d man da mus rat he r th an th e wor d ap pe al .” (em

ph as es in ori gi na l))

.

Thi s co ur t th eref

or e ap pl ie s th e tra di ti on al st an da rd fo r m an da m us

. “ The

is su an ce of a writ of m an da m us is an ex tra or di na ry rem ed y res erv ed fo r ex tra or di na ry

si tu at io ns .” In re Mi dA m er ic an Ener gy Co

. , 28 6 F.3 d 48 3, 48 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (p er

cu ria m ), ci ti ng Gulf

st re am Aer os

pace Co rp

. v. Ma

ya ca m as Co rp

. , 48 5 U.S. 27 1, 28 9
(1 98 8)

. “ ‘[O]n l y e xc ep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces am ou nt in g to a jud ic ia l us ur pa ti on of

po wer wil l jus ti fy th e in vo cat io n of th is ex tr a o r d i n a r y rem ed y .’ ” In re Am y

Unk no wn , 70 1 F.3 d at 75 7 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ), qu ot in g Ker r v. U.S. Dis t. Cour t
fo r N. Dis t. of Ca l.

, 42 6 U.S. 39 4, 40 2 (1 97 6)

. “Is s u a n c e of th e writ is la rg el y a

m at te r of di sc ret io n

. . . .” Id

. at 75 7, ci ti ng Schl

ag enha uf v. Ho ld

er , 37 9 U.S. 10 4,

11 2 n .8 (1 96 4)

.

Vick y m eet s th e fir st tra di ti on al co nd i ti on fo r m an da m us – no ad eq ua te

al te rn at iv e m ean s to ob ta in rel ie f

– be cau se m an da m us is he r on ly av en ue fo r rel ie f.

Se e Chen ey , 54 2 U.S. at 38 0- 81 (“ [The fir st ] co nd it io n [is ] de si gn ed to en su re th at th e

writ wil l no t be us ed as a su b s ti tu te fo r th e reg ul ar ap pe al s pr oc es s.” (ci ta ti on

om it te d) ). Sh e m

us t sh ow th at th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y an d in di sp ut ab ly erre d in th e

res ti tu ti on am ou nt it award ed he r, an d, i f so , th at th e wri t i s ap pr op ria te

.

IV.

Vick y arg ue s th at

, to be li a b l e , F as t ne ed no t ha ve pr ox im at el y cau se d th e

lo ss es de fin ed in su bs ect io ns 22 59 (b )(3 )(A) th ro ug h (E). Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo

th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of se ct io n 22 59

. Unit ed St at es v. Schm id

t

, 67 5 F.3 d

11 64

, 11 67 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). All bu t on e ci rcu it co ur t to ha ve ad dr es se d th e is su e read

su bs ect io ns 22 59 (b )(3 )(A) th ro ug h (E) to r e q ui re pr oo f of pr ox im at e cau se

. Lar an et a , 70 0 F.3 d at 99 0; Unit

ed St at es v. Bur g e s s , 6 8 4 F.3 d 44 5, 45 9 (4 th Ci r.

-1 1-20 12 ); Unit

ed St at es v. Kea rn ey , 67 2 F.3 d 81

, 9 5

- 9 6

, 9 9 (1 st Ci r. 20 12 ); Unit ed

St at es v. Eve rs , 66 9 F.3 d 64 5, 65 9 (6 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Unit ed St at es v. Aum ai

s , 65 6 F.3 d

14 7, 15 3 (2 d. Ci r. 20 11 ); Mo nz el

, 64 1 F.3 d at 53 6- 37 ; Un i t e d St at es v. McDa ni el

, 63 1 F.3 d 12 04

, 12 08 -0 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ); Unit ed St at es v. Lane y , 18 9 F.3 d 95 4, 96 5
( 9 t h C i r

. 19 99 ); Unit

ed St at es v. Cr an do n , 17 3 F.3 d 12 2, 12 5- 26 (3 d Ci r. 19 99 ).

Co nt ra , In re Am

y Unk no wn , 70 1 F.3 d at 76 2, 77 3 (in te rp r e t i n g su bs ect io ns

22 59 (b )(3 )(A) th ro ug h (E) no t to req ui re pr oo f of pr ox im at e cau se ). “ The ‘clear an d

in di sp ut ab le ’ te st is a p p l i e d a f te r” th e co ur t co ns tru es th e st at ut e. Gov ’t of V ir gi n

Is la nd s v. Dou gl as , 81 2 F.2 d 82 2, 83 2 n.1 0 (3 d Ci r. 19 87 ); se e In re Wi ck li ne , 79 6

F.2 d 1 05 5, 1 05 6- 57 (8t h C ir. 1 98 6)

.

Sect io n 22 59 de fin es th e “ fu ll am ou nt of th e vi ct im ’s lo ss es ” as in cl ud in g co st s

fo r:

(A) m ed ic al se rv ic es rel at in g to ph y si cal

, ps y ch ia tri c, or ps y ch ol og ic al

care ;

(B) p hysic al an d o ccu pa ti on al th erap y or r eh ab il it at io n;

(C) ne ces sa ry tra ns po rta ti on , te m po rary ho us in g, an d c h i l d care

ex pe ns es ;

(D) lo st in co m e;

(E) at to rn ey s’ fees , as wel l as ot he r co st s i nc ur red ; an d

(F) an y ot he r lo ss es su ffer ed by the vi ct im as a p ro xi mat e re su lt of th e of fe ns e

.

18 U.S.C. § 22 59 (b)( 3) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Vick y cl ai m s th at on ly t he l o s s es in th e

la st su bs ect io n r e q u i r e p r o o f of pr ox im at e cau se

. Sh e in vo ke s th e “ ru le of th e la st

an te ced en t” to co nc lu de th at th e li m it in g cl au se – “ as a pr ox im at e res u l t o f th e

of fen se ”
– in th e la st it em of a se rie s m od ifi es on ly th at la st it em

. Se e Ci nci nna ti In s.

-1 2-Co

. v

. B l u e wo od

, In c. , 56 0 F.3 d 79 8, 80 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), qu ot in g Ba rn ha rt v.

Thom as , 54 0 U.S. 2 0, 2 6 (2 00 3) . “ The rul e o f th e la st an te ced en t, ho wev er, ‘ is no t

an ab so lu te an d can as su red ly be ov erco m e by ot he r in di c i a o f m ean in g.’” Unit ed

St at es v. Ha yes , 55 5 U.S. 41 6, 42 5- 26 (2 00 9)

, qu ot in g Ba rn ha rt

, 54 0 U .S. at 26

. Fas t an d th e go ve rn m en t co un te r wit h th e can on : “ W he n se ve ral wor ds are fo ll owe d
by a cl au se whi ch is ap pl ic ab le as m uc h to th e fir st an d ot he r wor ds as to th e la st

, th e

na tu ral co ns tru ct io n of th e la ng ua ge de m an ds th at th e cl au se be read as ap pl ic ab le to

al l.” McDa ni el

, 63 1 F.3 d at 12 09 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, qu ot in g Por to

Ri co Ry., Lig ht & Pow er Co

. v. Mo r , 25 3 U.S. 34 5, 34 8 (1 92 0) ( f i n d i n g “[n]o

reas on ” why th e cl au se at is su e “ sh ou ld no t be read as ap pl y in g to ” al l pr eced in g ph ras es ); se e al

so Fed

. Ma r. Co m m ’n v. Sea tr ai n Line s, In c. , 41 1 U

. S

. 7 2 6

, 7 34
(1 97 3) (“ It is

. . . a fam il ia r can on of st at ut or y co ns tru ct io n th at [cat ch al l] cl au se s are

to be read as br in gi ng wit hi n a st at ut e cat eg or ie s si m il ar in type to th os e sp eci fic al ly

en um erat ed .” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ).

Neit he r can on is ab so lu te

. Se e Ba rn ha rt

, 54 0 U.S. at 26

, 28

- 2 9 ; Po rt o Ri co Ry., Lig ht & Pow er Co

. , 25 3 U.S

. at 34 8. Mo re pe rs ua si ve he re is th e Seco nd

Ci rcu it ’s reas on in g in Uni te d St at es v. Hay es , 13 5 F.3 d 13 3, 13 7- 38 (2 d Ci r. 19 98 ).

The re, th e st at ut e at is su e, se ct io n 22 64 (b )(3 ), is id en ti cal to se ct io n 22 59 (b )(3 ),

ex cep t t h a t i t s su bs ect io n (E) read s: “ at to rn ey s’ fees

, pl us an y co st s in cu rred in

ob ta in in g a ci vi l pr ot ect io n or de r.” Ha yes , 13 5 F.3 d at 13 7, qu ot in g 18 U.S.C. §

22 64 (b)( 3)

. The Seco nd Ci rcu it he ld

, “ Rea di ng [s ub s]ect io n 22 64 (b )(3 )(E) to ge th er

wit h [s ub s]ect io n 2 26 4( b) (3 )(F) , a tt or ne y s’ f ees an d co st s of ob ta in in g a p ro te ct io n

or de r are amo ng th e ‘lo ss es su ff er ed by th e vi ct im a s a p r o x i mat e re su lt of th e of fe ns e .’ ” Id

. at 13 8 (em

ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. V i c k y i nt erp ret s Hay es

to m ean th at “ th e lo ss es li st ed in su bs ect io ns (A)-(E) are au to m at ic al ly

. . .
pr ox im at el y cau se d by th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t.” Rat he r, th e Seco nd Ci rcu it he ld th at

se ct io n 22 64 (b )(3 ) “ au th or iz es res ti tu ti on ” fo r t he sp eci fic lo ss es in su bs ect io ns

22 64 (b )(3 )(A) th ro ug h (E). Se e id

. (em ph as is ad de d)

. The “ pr ox im at e res ul t” cl au se

in th e la st su bs ect io n 22 64 (b )(3 )(F) sh ows th at Co ng r e s s c o ns id ered th e co st s in

-1 3-su bs ect io ns 22 64 (b )(3 )(A) th ro ug h (E) “ am on g th e lo ss es th at are prox im at el y cau se d

by the off en se ,” bu t t ha t ca us at io n s ti ll m us t b e p ro ve d i n e ach cas e. Se e id

.

Si m il arl y , th e Fi rs t Ci rcu it

– in te rp ret in g se ct io n 22 59 at is su e he re – reas on ed

t ha t th e “ ex pr es s in cl us io n [o f th e sp eci fic lo ss es in su bs ect io ns 22 59 (b )( 3 ) ( A )

th ro ug h (E)]

. . . in di cat es th at C o n g r e ss be li ev ed su ch da m ag es were su ffi ci en tl y

fo res eeab le to warra nt th ei r en um erat io n in th e st at ut e.” Kea rn ey , 67 2 F.3 d at 97 ; se e

Unit ed St at es v. Gam bl

e , – – F.3 d

–– – , – –– , 2 01 3 W L 6 92 51 2, at *6 (6t h Ci r. Feb

. 27

, 20 13 ) (“ [T]he li st of r e c o v erab le lo ss es th at th e st at ut e pr ov id es co nf irms th e

br ead th of wha t is a fo res eeab le co ns eq ue nc e of de fen da nt s’ act io ns .”). Tha t se ct io n

22 59 en um erat es th os e lo ss es “ be ars em ph as is be cau se at th e s a me t im e Co ng res s

en act ed § 22 59

, it en act ed an ot he r res ti tu ti on st at ut e th at di d no t en um erat e cat eg or ie s

of lo ss es .” Kea rn ey , 67 2 F.3 d at 97

. In st ead

, th at st at ut e “ st at ed th at ‘the te rm “ fu ll

am ou nt of th e vi ct im s lo ss es ” m ean s al l lo ss es su ffer ed by th e vi ct im as a pr ox im at e

res ul t o f th e o ffen se .’ ” Id

. (fo ot no te om it te d)

, qu ot in g Pub. L. 10 3- 32 2, § 25 00 02
, 10 8 Sta t. 20 82
, 2 0 8 3 (co di fie d at 18 U.S.C. § 23 27 (b)( 3) ). Co nt rary to Vick y ’s

as se rti on , th e va ria ti on am on g th es e res ti tu ti on st at ut es do es no t m ean th at Co ng res s

el im in at ed th e pr ox im at e cau se req ui rem en t fo r th e sp eci fic al ly en um erat ed lo ss es in

su bs ect io ns 22 59 (b )(3 )(A) th r o u g h ( E). Rat he r, va ria nc es am on g th es e res ti tu ti on

sta tut es “ de m on st rat e th at Co ng res s vi ewed pa rti cu la r of fen se s as caus ing fo re se ea ble

ris ks of cert ai n lo ss es [m eri ti ng en um erat io n] in th e[s e] [res ti tu ti on ] st at ut es .” Id

. at

97 n.1 3. The Fi rs t Ci rcu it co nc lu de d th at

, al th ou gh Co ng res s de t e r mi ne d th at

res ti tu ti on off

en se s fo res eeab ly caus e th e lo ss es in su bs ect io ns (A) th ro ug h (E) , th e

de fen da nt – to be li ab le

– st il l m us t pr ox im at el y cau se th e vi ct im ’s lo ss es

. Se e id

. at

9 5 -9 7, 99 -1 00 (h ol di ng “ th at th e pr ox im at e cau se req ui rem en t was sa ti sf i e d

. . . be cau se [th e de fen da nt ’s] act io ns res ul te d in id en ti fia bl e lo ss es as ou tl in ed in th e

ex pe rt rep or

ts an d V ic ky ’ s vict im im

pa ct st at em en ts ” (fo ot no te an d ci ta ti on om it te d) ).

Thi s co ur t ag rees

. Co ng res s de te rm in ed tha t the se re st it ut io n of fen se s ty pi ca ll y

pr ox im at el y cau se th e lo ss es en um erat ed in su bs ect io ns 22 59 (b )(3 )(A) th ro ug h (E).

-1 4-Co ng res s di d no t m ean th at a s p e c i fi c de fen da nt au to mat ic al ly pr ox im at el y cau se s

th os e lo ss es in ever

y c a s e

. The go ve rn m en t st il l ha s to pr ov e th at th e de fen da nt

pr ox im at el y cau se d th os e lo ss es

. Se e 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 22 59 (a )

, (b)( 3) (A)

- (F)

, (c)
(“ ‘[V] ic ti m’ mea n s t h e in di vi du al ha rm ed as a re su lt of a co mmis si on of a cr ime

un de r th is ch ap te r” (em

ph as is ad de d) ); id

. § 36 64 (e) ; Lar an et

a , 70 0 F.3 d at 99 0- 92 ;

Kea rn ey , 67 2 F .3d at 9 5- 97

. 5

V.

Vick y co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d t o a ward he r th e st at ut or il y

m an da te d “ fu ll am ou nt of [h er ] l o s s e s

. ” Se e 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 (b)( 1)

. Bec au se

is su an ce of th e writ of m an da m us is an ex tra or di na ry rem ed y , sh e m us t sh ow th at th e

di st ric t co ur t cl earl y an d in di sp ut ab ly erre d. Res ti tu ti on is m an da to ry un de r se ct io n

22 59

. Id

. § 2 25 9( a)

, (b)(4 )(A)

. The res ti tu ti on or de r “ sh al l be iss ue d a nd en fo rced

in acco rd an ce wit h se ct io n 36 64 .” Id

. § 22 5 9 ( b ) ( 2 )

. Und er th at se ct io n, “ [a]ny

di sp ut e as to th e pr op er am ou nt or type o f res ti tu ti on sh al l be re so lv ed by th e co ur t by th e pr ep on de ra nc e of th e evi de nc e .” Id

. § 36 64 (e) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. The

go ve rn m en t be ars th e “ bu rd en of de m on st rat in g th e am ou nt of th e lo ss su st ai ne d by

a v ic ti m as a res ul t o f th e o ffen se .” Id

.

“ [I]njur y to th e ch il d de pi ct ed in th e ch il d po rn og rap hy

. . . is a re ad il y fo re se ea b l e re su lt of di st rib ut io n an d po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy.” Kea rn ey , 67 2 F.3 d at 97 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. Pro vi ng pr ox im at e cau se m ay req ui re no th in g m or e

th an “ ex pe rt rep or ts an d

. . . vi ct im im pa ct st at em en ts ” ab ou t th e co st s en um erat ed in

su bs ect io ns (A) th ro ug h (E) th a t t h e vi ct im in cu rred aft er th e de fen da nt ’s of fen se

be ga n. Se e, e.g

. , id

. at 9 6- 10 0 (d is cu ss in g p ro xi m at e cau se ). Dete rm in in g th e “ fu ll

Se e al so S. R e p

. No. 10 3- 13 8

, at 56 (1 99 3) (n ot in g th at “ se ct io n [2 25 9] 5

req ui res se x of

fen de rs to pa y co st s in cu rred by vi ct im s as a pr ox ima te re su lt of a se x cri m e” (e m

ph as is ad de d) ).

-1 5-am ou nt of th e vi ct im ’s lo ss es ” th at a de fen da nt ’s o f f e n s e cau se d is be st le ft to th e

di st ric t co ur t in th e fir st in st an ce. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 (b)( 1) (“ [T]he d e f e n da nt
[s ha ll ] pa y

. . . t he ful l am ou nt of t he vi ct im ’s lo ss es as de te rmi ne d b y th e co ur t

. . . .” (em ph as is ad de d) ); Lar an et

a , 70 0 F.3d at 99 1; Bur

ge ss , 68 4 F.3d at 46 0; Unit ed

St at es v. McGa ri ty , 66 9 F .3d 12 18 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ).

Vick y cl ai m s th e res ti tu ti on aw a r d s h ou ld be $9 52 ,75 9.8 1
— he r (n et )

do c u men t e d lo ss es to da te

. Fas t di d no t po ss es s an y im ag es of he r un ti l Ju ne 25

, 20 10

. Bu t s he su ffer ed lo ss es be fo re t he n. Se e, e.g

. , McDa ni el , 63 1 F .3d at 12 06

. As th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d, Fas t co ul d no t ha ve cau se d

– an d th us co ul d no t be li ab le

fo r – lo ss es be fo re th at da te

. Se e Gam bl e , –– F.3 d at

––

– , 20 13 W L 69 25 12

, at *1 1
(“ As a lo gi cal m at te r, a de fen da nt ge ne ral ly can no t cau se ha rm pr io r to th e da te of hi s

of fen se .”); Kea rn ey , 67 2 F.3 d at 97 (“ Vick y ’s [h arm s]

. . . were reas on ab l y

fo res eeab le at

th e ti me of

[t he de fe nd an t’s ] co nd uc t .” (em

ph as is ad de d) ).

Vick y ci te s Hay es , whe re th e de fen da nt was li ab le fo r th e vi c t i m ’s co st s in

ob ta in in g ci vi l pr ot ect io n or de rs ev en th ou gh th e of fen se – vi ol at in g th e pr ot ect io n

or de rs by cro ss in g st at e li ne s – occu rred af te r th e vi ct im in cu rred th e co st s. Ha yes , 13 5 F.3 d at 13 7- 38

. Alt ho ug h th e t r i g ge rin g of fen se oc cu rred aft er th e vi ct im

in cu rred th e co st s, th ey were “ a res ul t of co nd uc t by [th e de fen da nt ] ex te nd in g ba ck

to th e ti m e [th e vi ct im ] ob ta in ed th e

. . . pr ot ect io n or de rs .” Id

. at 13 8. Here, Vick y

di d n ot in cu r lo ss es as a res ul t o f Fas t’s co nd uc t b efo re h is off en se be ga n.

Mo reo ve r, al l $ 95 2,7 59 .81 of Vi ck y ’s lo ss es are no t clea rly and in di sp ut ab ly

tra ceab le to Fas t’s cri m e. Se e Mo nz el

, 64 1 F.3 d at 53 8 (“ [W] e [can no t] sa y th at [th e 6

Vick y arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve he ld Fas t joi nt ly an d se ve ral ly 6

li ab le fo r th e fu ll am ou nt of he r lo ss es

. The n, sh e as se rts

, he co ul d se ek co nt rib ut io n fro m ot he r de fen da nt s li ab le to he r. Sect io n 36 64 st at es , “ If th e co ur t fin ds th at m or e th an 1 de fen da nt ha s co nt rib ut ed to th e lo s s o f a vi ct im

, th e co ur t m ay m ak e each
de fen da nt li ab le fo r pa y m en t of th e fu ll am ou nt of res ti tu ti on or m ay ap po rti on

-1 6-vi ct im ] is cl earl y an d in di sp ut ab ly en ti tl ed to th e fu ll $3 ,26 3,7 58 fro m [th e de fen da nt ]

on th e gr ou nd th at he r in

juri es are ‘ind iv is ib le .’ ”); se e al so Bur ge ss , 68 4 F.3 d at 46 0
(“ The pr im ary di ffi cu lt y th at wil l face th e di st ric t co ur t

. . . wil l be th e de te rm in at io n

. . . of th e qu an tu m of lo ss at tri bu ta b l e to [th e de fen da nt ] fo r hi s pa rti ci pa ti on in

Vick y ’s ex pl oi ta ti on .”). “ The go ve rn m en t ha s no t sh own th at [Fas t] cau se d th e

en ti re ty of [Vic ky’ s] lo ss es .” Mo nz el

, 64 1 F.3 d at 53 8 (em ph as is in or ig in al ); se e 18

U.S.C. § 36 64 (e)

. The co ur t di d no t cl earl y an d in di sp ut ab ly err in no t awa r di ng

Vick y $9 52 ,75 9.8 1 re st it ut io n.

The di st ric t co ur t or de red Fas t to pa y $3 ,33 3 res ti tu ti on

. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d

t ha t th is award co ns is ts of “ $2 ,50 0 fo r m ed ic al an d ps y ch ia tri c care , oc cu pa t i o n a l

th erap y , an d lo st in co m e un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 (b )(3 )(A), (B), & (D),” an d $8 33 fo r

“ at to rn ey fees an d c os ts un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 9( b) (3 )(E).” It reas on ed th at $3 ,33 3

rep res en ts th e to ta l am ou nt of lo ss Fas t pr ox im at el y cau se d Vick y

. The co ur t fu lfi ll ed

it s du ty t o award Vick y th e “ fu ll am ou nt of [h er] l os se s.” S e e i d

. § 2 2 5 9 ( a)

, (b)( 1)
(“ [T]he co ur t sh al l o r d e r r e st it ut io n

. . . [an d] th e de fen da nt [s ha ll ] pa y

. . . th e fu ll

am ou nt of th e vi ct im ’s lo ss es as de te rm in ed by th e co ur t.”) ; id

. § 22 59 (c) (“ ‘[V] ic ti m ’

mea ns th e in di vi du al ha rm ed as a res ul t of a co m m is si on of a cri m e un de r th i s

ch ap te r.”); se e al

so Ker r , 4 26 U.S. at 40 2 (“ [T]he writ [o f m an da m us ] ha s

tra di ti on al ly be en us ed in th e fed eral co u r ts on ly to co nf in e an in feri or co ur t to a

la wfu l exer ci se of

it s pres cri be d juris di ct io n or to com pe l it to ex erci se it s aut ho rit y

li ab il it y am on g th e de fen da nt s to refl ect th e le ve l of co nt rib ut io n to th e vi ct im ’s lo ss

an d eco no m ic ci rcu m st an ces of each de fen da nt .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( h)

. Bec au se

“ th ere is on ly on e d e f

e n da nt in th is cas e,” se ct io n 36 64 (h ) do es no t ap pl y

. E.g.

, Lar an et a , 7 00 F.3 d at 99 2- 93 ; Aum ai s , 6 5 6 F

. 3 d a t 15 6 (“ Sect io n 36 64 (h ) im pl ie s th at joi nt an d se ve ral li ab il it y m ay be im po se d on ly whe n a si ng le di st ric t ju d ge is
de al in g wit h m

ul ti pl e de fen da nt s in a si ng le cas e

. . . .”); se e Gam bl e , –– F.3 d at

––

–, 20 13 W L 69 25 12

, at *6 (rejec ti ng joi nt -an d- se ve ral li ab il it y an d co nt rib ut io n pa rtl y be cau se “ in th is co nt ex t a co nt rib ut io n sys t e m w o u ld be ‘ext rao rd in ari ly cl um sy’ ” (q uo ti ng Lar an et

a , 70 0 F .3d at 9 93 )).

-1 7-whe n it is it s du ty to do so .” (ci t a t i on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). The

co ur t d id no t cl earl y

an d i nd is pu ta bl y

err i n o rd eri ng Fas t t o p ay $3 ,33 3 re st it ut io n.

* * * * * * *

The m ot io ns to di sm is s Vick y ’s di rect ap pe al are gr an te d. The pe t i ti on fo r

m an da m us is de ni ed

.

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I co nc ur wit h res pe ct to se ct io ns I, II, an d III of th e m ajor it y ’s op in io n. I

di ss en t wit h res pe ct to se ct io ns IV an d V, an d wit h res pe ct to th e jud gm en t, be cau se

I wou ld f o l l o w th e Fi fth Ci rcu it ’s ap pr oa ch an d ho ld th at on ly da m ag es award ed

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 (b )(3 )(F) are s ub ject t o a pro xi m at e cau se req ui rem en t. See

In re Am y Unk no wn, 70 1 F.3d 74 9, 75 2 (5t h Cir. 20 12 ) (en ba nc ). Co ns eq ue nt ly, I

wou ld gr an t Vick y ’s p et it io n fo r m an da m us rel ie f an d rem an d fo r th e di st ric t co ur t

to reca lc ul at e h er l os se s.

I.

As th e m ajor it y co rrec tl y ex pl ai ns , Vick y is en ti tl ed to m an da m us rel ie f if sh e

can sh ow th ree th in gs : (1 ) sh e ha s “ no ad eq ua te alt ern at iv e m ean s t o o bt ai n rel ie f,”
(2 ) “ th e d i s tri ct co ur t cl earl y an d in di sp ut ab ly erre d in th e res ti tu ti on am ou nt it

award ed he r,” an d (3 ) “ th e writ is ap pr op ria te .” Su pr a at 11 (ci ti ng Ch en ey v. U.S.

Dis t. Co ur t fo r th e Dis t. of Co lu m bi a, 54 2 U.S. 36 7, 38 0- 81 (2 00 4) ). I ag ree wit h th e

m ajor it y th at th e fir st el em en t is sa ti sf ie d he re be cau se m an da m us is th e on ly po te nt ia l

rel ie f av ai la bl e to Vick y

. See su pr a at 11

. Howev er, th e m ajor it y go es on to co nc lu de

th at Vick y is no t en ti tl ed to a writ of m an da m u s be cau se he r “ lo ss es are no t cl earl y

an d in di sp ut ab ly t r a c e a b le to Fas t’s cri m e.” Su pr a at 16

. Thi s is ba se d on th e

m ajor it y ’s co nc lu si on th at al l lo ss es un de r s e c t io n 22 59 are su bjec t to a pr ox im at e

-1 8-cau se req ui rem en t. See su pr a at 15 -1 7. Bec au se I d i sa gr ee wit h th is in te rp ret at io n

of th e st at ut e, I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

A.

Sect io n 22 59 req ui res co ur ts to or de r “ th e de fen da nt to pa y th e vi ct im

. . . th e

fu ll am ou nt of th e vi ct im ’s lo ss es

. . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 (b )(1 ). The st at ut e de fin es

“ vi ct im ” as “ th e in di vi du al ha rm ed as a res ul t of a co m m is si on of a cri m e un de r th is

ch ap te r . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 22 59 (c). Th e st at ut e al so pro vi de s:

Fo r pu rp os es of th is su bs ect io n, th e te rm “ fu ll am ou nt of th e vi ct im ’s
lo ss es ” in cl ud es an y

co st s i nc ur red by the vi ct im for

— (A) m ed ic al se rv ic es rel at in g to ph y si cal

, ps yc hi at ric

, or

ps y ch ol og ic al care ; (B) p hysic al an d o ccu pa ti on al th erap y or r eh ab il it at io n; (C) ne ces sa ry tra ns po rta ti on , te m po rary ho us in g, an d ch il d

care ex pe ns es ; (D) lo st in co m e; (E) at to rn ey s’ fees , as wel l as ot he r co st s i nc ur red ; an d (F) an y ot he r lo ss es su ffer ed by t he vi ct im as a pr ox im at e

res ul t o f th e o ffen se

.

18 U.S.C. § 2 25 9( b) (3 ).

In In re Am

y Unk no wn, th e Fi fth Ci rcu it co nc lu de d th at th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of

se ct io n 2 25 9 i m

po se s a p ro xi m at e cau se req ui rem en t o nl y on lo ss es award ed un de r

su bs ect io n (b )(3 )(F)

. 70 1 F

. 3 d a t 7 6 2

. The co ur t reas on ed th at th e ru le of th e la st

an te ced en t, a well -es ta bl is he d ru le of st at ut or y co ns tru ct io n, “ ins tr uc ts that ‘a li m it in g

cl au se or ph r a s e , ’ s u ch as th e ‘pro xi m at e res ul t’ p hr as e in § 22 59 (b )(3 )(F) , ‘sh ou ld

or di na ril y be read as m od ifyin g on ly th e no un or ph ras e th at it im m ed ia te ly fo ll ows .’ ”

Id

. (q uo ti ng Barn ha rt v. Tho m as , 54 0 U.S. 20

, 26 (2 00 3) ). Si gn ifi can tl y , th e Su pr em e

Co ur t ap pl ie d th e ru le of th e la st an te ced en t in two rece nt cas es

. Id

. at 76 4 (an al y zi ng

-1 9-Barn ha rt, 5 40 U.S. 2 0 an d Ja m a v. Im m ig rat io n & Cu st om s Enfo rcem en t, 54 3 U.S.

33 5 (2 00 5) ). Bec au se “ [t]he st ru ct ur e an d la ng ua ge of § 22 59 (b )(3 ) li m it th e ph ras e

‘suf fere d by th e vi ct im as a pr ox im at e res ul t of th e of fen se ’ in § 22 59 (b )(3 )(F) to th e

m is cel la ne ou s ‘ ot he r lo ss es ’ co nt ai ne d in th at su bs ect io n,” an d be cau se th ere is “ no

‘oth er in di ci a of m ean in g’ in th e st at ut e to su gg es t th at th e ru le of th e la st an te ced en t

do es no t ap pl y he re,” th e co ur t fo un d th at lo ss es in su bs ect io ns (A)-(E) are no t su bjec t

to a pr ox im at e cau se req ui rem en t. Id . at 7 62

.

Thu s, un de r th e Fi fth Ci rcu it ’s ap pr oa ch

, as lo ng as lo ss es in su bs ect io ns (A)-
( E) are in cu rred “ as a res ul t of a co m m is si on of a cri m e un de r th is ch ap te r,”
§ 22 59 (c), a di st ric t co ur t m us t award vi ct im s “ th e fu ll am ou nt ” of th ei r lo ss es un de r

se ct io n 22 59 (b )(1 ), reg ard le ss of whe th er th e de fen da nt pr ox im at el y cau s e d t h o se

lo ss es

. See In re Am

y Unk no wn, 70 1 F.3 d at 76 2. Onl y m is cel la ne ou s “ ot he r lo ss es ”

are s ub ject t o a pro xi m at e cau se req ui rem en t. Id

.

Thi s, of co ur se , do es no t m ean th at th e st at ut e im po se s no cau sa l req ui rem en t

at al l. As ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, se ct io n 22 59 de fin es “ vi ct im ” as “ th e in di vi du al ha rm ed

as a res ul t of a co m

m is si on of a c rime un de r th is ch ap te r,” § 22 59 (c), an d th en

req ui res co ur ts to or de r res ti tu ti on fo r “t h e fu ll am ou nt of th e vi ct im ’s lo ss es ,”
§ 22 59 (b )(1 ). Thu s, be fo re a co ur t can or de r res ti tu ti on , it m us t de te rm in e th at (1 ) th e

de fen da nt co m

m it te d a qu al ifyin g of

fen se an d (2 ) th e pe rs on se ek in g r e st it ut io n

su ffer ed ha rm as a res ul t of t h a t of fen se

. See § 22 59

. To th e ex te nt th at th e ha rm

res ul ti ng fro m th e of

fen se in vo lv es m ed ic al se rv ic es , th erap y or reh ab il it at io n,

tra ns po rta ti on , te m

po rary ho us in g, ch il d care , lo st inc om e, or at tor ne y s’ fees an d co st s

un d e r su bs ect io ns (A)-(E), a de fen da nt m us t pa y res ti tu ti on fo r th e fu ll am ou nt of

th os e ha rm s, reg ard le ss of whe th er th e de fen da nt pr ox im at el y cau se d th em

. Co ng res s

li ke ly ch os e no t t o i mp os e a pr ox im at e cau se req ui rem en t fo r th es e types of lo ss es

be cau se pr ov in g p ro xi m at e cau sa ti on wou ld be vi rtu al ly im po ss ib le in m an y

si tu at io ns , th us lea vi ng ch il d v ic ti m s wi th ou t re dr es s.

-2 0-The co nc ep t of cau sa ti on in cas es un de r se ct io n 22 59 ad mi tt ed ly is

co m pl ic at ed

. A de fen da nt ’s act io n is a “ cau se ” of a vi ct im ’s in jury i f th at act io n

so m eh ow co nt rib ut ed to th e in jury. See Bl ack ’s Law Dict io na ry 25 0 (9t h ed. 20 09 )
(d efi ni ng “ cau se ”). Thi s ge ne ral de fin it io n of cau se is ex pa ns iv e. Fo r ex am pl e , a

vi ct im who se im ag es ha ve be en m ad e wid el y av ai la bl e th ro ug h po st in g on t h e

int ern et m ay in cu r si gn ifi can t co un se li ng ex pe ns es to ad dr es s ps y ch olo gic al pr obl em s

s te m m in g fro m th e kn owl ed ge th at nu m ero us un kn own pe op le are vi ewin g th e 7

im ag es

. Each in di vi du al de fen da nt who vi ews th os e im ag es is a “ cau se ” of th at ha rm

be cau se , i f no on e vi ewed th e im ag es , t he vi ct im arg ua bl y wou ld no t ha ve su ffer ed

th at pa rti cu la r fo rm of ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm

. See In re Am y Unk no wn, 70 1 F.3 d at 77 3
(“ By po ss es si ng , rece iv in g, an d di st rib ut in g ch il d po rn og rap h y, de fen da nt s

co ll ect iv el y crea te th e de m an d th at fu el s th e crea ti on of th e ab us iv e im ag es

. Thu s,

whe re a d e fen da nt is co nv ic te d of po ss es si ng , rece iv in g, or di st rib ut in g ch il d

po rn og rap hy, a pe rs on is a vi ct im un de r th is de fin it io n if th e im ag es

. . . in cl ud e th os e

of th at in di vi du al .”).

I n c o nt ras t, “ pr ox im at e cau se ” in vo lv es m or e of a po li cy jud gm en t ab ou t

whe th er a pa rti cu l a r d e f

e n da nt ’s act io n be ars a su ffi ci en t cau sa l rel at io ns hi p to an

in jury su ch th at th e la w sh ou ld ho ld th e de fen da nt li ab le fo r th e in jury. See Bl ack ’s

Law Dict io na ry 2 5 0 ( 9 t h ed

. 20 09 ) (d efi ni ng “ pr ox im at e cau se ” an d no ti ng th at

“ [s ]om e bo un da ry m

us t be se t to li ab il it y fo r th e co ns eq ue nc es of a ny ac t, up on th e

ba si s of so m e so ci al id ea of jus ti ce or po li cy ” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). On

on e en d of th e sp ect ru m is th e ex am pl e ab ov e, whe re th e vi ct im ’s ps y ch ol og ic al

pr ob le m s are “ cau se d” by in nu m erab le un kn ow n d e f e n da nt s. In th is si tu at io n, th e

ca u s a l l i n k be twee n a sp eci fic de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t an d th e vi ct im ’s lo ss es is m or e

te nu ou s be cau se it wou ld be vi rtu al l y im po ss ib le to sh ow th at th e vi ct im ’s

Acco rd in g to th e Si xt h Ci rcu it

, ap pr ox im at el y 30 0 de fen da nt s al read y ha ve 7

be en co nv ic te d of po ss es si ng Vick y ’s i mag e s. Uni te d St at es v. Gam bl e, Nos

. 11

- 53 94 /5 54 4, s li p o p. at 19 (6t h C ir. Fe b. 2 7, 2 01 3)

.

-2 1-ps y ch ol og ic al tra um a an d at te nd an t co un se li ng e xp en se s wou ld ha ve be en an y le ss

ha d th at in di vi du al de fen da nt no t vi ewed th e im ag es

. In ot he r wor ds

, i t i s un cl ear

whe th er th e vi ct im co ul d pr ov e th at an in di vi du al de fen da nt “ pr ox im at el y cau se d” hi s

or he r lo ss es

. Co m

pa re Uni te d St at es v. Aum ai s, 65 6 F.3 d 14 7, 15 4 (2 d Ci r. 20 11 )
(fi nd in g no pr ox im at e cau se whe n ev id en ce sh owe d de fen da nt was on e of m an y who

vi ewed vi ct im ’s im ag es , bu t vi ct im “ ‘had no di rect co nt act wit h [th e de fen da nt ] no r

ev en kn ew of hi s ex is te nc e’”) an d Uni te d St at e s v

. Ken ne dy, 64 3 F.3 d 12 51

, 12 64
(9 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th at whi le ev id en ce whi ch “ sh owe d on ly th at [th e de fen da nt ]

pa rti ci pa te d in th e au di en ce of pe rs on s who vi ewed th e im ag es

. . . m ay be su ffi ci en t

to es ta bl is h th at [th e de fen da nt ’s] act io ns were on e cau se of th e ge ne ral iz ed ha rm ” to

th e vi ct im s, “ it is no t su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at [th e de fen da nt was ] a pr ox im at e cau se

of an y pa rti cu la r lo ss es ”), wit h Uni te d St at es v. Kearn ey , 67 2 F.3 d 81

, 99 (1 st Ci r

. 20 12 ) (“ W e reject th e th eo ry th at th e vi c t i m o f c h il d po rn og rap hy co ul d on ly s ho w [p ro xi m at e] cau sa ti on if sh e fo cu se d on a sp eci fic de fe n d a n t’s vi ewin g an d

red is tri b u t i o n o f he r im ag es an d th en at tri bu te d sp eci fic lo ss es to th at de fen da nt ’s

act io ns .”) an d Uni te d St a t e s v

. Bu rg es s, 68 4 F.3 d 44 5, 45 9- 60 (4 th Ci r. 20 12 )
(ad op ti ng Fir st Cir cu it ’s in te rp ret at io n o f pr ox im at e cau se ).

On th e ot he r en d of th e sp ect ru m are lo ss es su ch as at to rn ey ’s fees in cu rred in

pu rs ui ng a res ti tu ti on act io n ag ai ns t th at de fen da nt

. Tho se lo ss es be ar a m uc h cl os er

cau sa l rel at io ns hi p to th e in di vi du al de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t, an d th us it wou ld be m uc h

m or e li ke ly th at a vi ct im co ul d pr ov e th e de fen da nt “ pr ox im at el y c a u s e d ” th os e

lo ss es . See Gam

bl e, Nos . 11 -5 39 4/ 55 44 , sl ip op . a t 1 8 (d es cri bi ng “ li ti ga ti on co st s

in co nn ect io n wit h th e pa rti cu la r de fen da nt ” as “ pr ox im at el y cau se d ha rm s [th at ] are

cl earl y tra ceab le to a pa rti cu la r de fen da nt ”). Bec au se I wou ld ho ld th at on ly

m is cel la ne ou s ot he r lo ss es in su bs ect io n ( F ) a re su bjec t to a pr ox im at e cau se

req ui rem en t, an d b ecau se th e di st ric t cou rt nev er add res se d whet he r an y of Vick y ’s

cl ai m ed lo ss es fal l u nd er s ub se ct io n (F), it wou ld be pr em at ur e fo r m e to at te m pt to

de fin e th e p reci se co nt ou rs of “ pr ox im at e cau se ” at th is jun ct ur e.

-2 2-Add res si ng cau sa ti o n , h o w ev er, is on ly th e fir st st ep th at a co ur t m us t ta ke

whe n craf ti ng a res ti tu ti on award

. Co nc lu di ng th at a de fen da nt cau se d a vi ct im lo ss , ei th er as a ge ne ral “ cau se ” wit h r e s p e ct to lo ss es in su bs ect io ns (A)-(E) or as a

“ pr ox i mat e c au se ” wit h res pe ct to m is cel la ne ou s ot he r lo ss es in su bs ect io n (F),

m erel y es ta bl is he s th at a co ur t m us t en te r a res ti tu ti on or de r. The ne xt st ep is fo r th e

co ur t t o d et erm in e th e am ou nt of t he res ti tu ti on ord er.

Sect io n 22 59 (b )(1 ) cl earl y st at es th at th e res ti tu ti on or de r m us t be fo r “ th e fu ll

am ou nt of th e vi ct im ’s lo s s e s.” Rea d in ta nd em wit h su bs ect io n 22 59 (c), whi ch

de fin es “ vi ct i m” a s “ th e in di vi du al ha rm ed as a res ul t of a co m m is si on of a cri m e

un de r th is ch ap te r,” th e st at ut e’s refe ren ce to “ th e fu ll am ou nt of th e vi ct im ’s lo ss es ”

is be st un de rs to od as al l lo ss es th e vi ct im su ffer ed as a res ul t of th e de fen da nt ’s cri m e

un de r Tit le 18

, Part I, Ch ap te r 11 0: Sex ua l Exp lo it at io n an d Oth er Abu se of Ch il dr en

. App lying no rm al co m

m on -la w pr in ci pl es , whe re th e lo ss es st em fro m an in di vi si bl e

in jury, th e de fen da nt m

us t be he ld joi nt ly an d se ve ral ly li ab le fo r th at in jury. See

Bu rg es s, 68 4 F.3 d at 46 1 (Greg or y , J., co nc ur rin g in pa rt an d di ss en ti ng in pa rt)

. Fo r

ex am pl e, if th e hypo th et ic al vi ct im ab ov e h a s i n cu rred a to ta l of $5 00 ,00 0 in

co un se li ng ex pe ns e s as a res ul t of kn owi ng th at nu m ero us un kn own pe op le are

vi ewin g hi s or he r po rn og rap hi c im ag es , an d th e co ur t m ak es a fact ua l fin di ng th at

h i s o r he r ps y ch ol og ic al tra um a is an in di vi si bl e in jury, th en th e di st ric t co ur t m us t

en te r a res ti tu ti on or de r fo r $5 00 ,00 0, ev en th ou gh th e in di vi du al de fen da nt is no t th e

on ly p ers on res po ns ib le fo r th os e lo ss es

. See id

. If t h e co ur t de te rm in es th at so m e

or al l of th e vi ct im ’s in

juri es are di vi si bl e, th en th e co ur t m us t ap po rti on li ab il it y fo r

th os e lo ss es an d en te r a res ti tu ti on or de r refl ect in g on ly th e po rti on of th os e lo ss es fo r

wh i ch th e de fen da nt is in di vi du al ly res po ns ib le

. See id

. An ex am pl e of di vi si bl e

lo ss es m i g h t b e at to rn ey ’s fees in cu rred in pu rs in g a res ti tu ti on act io n ag ai ns t a

sp eci fic de fen da nt . See Gam bl e, Nos . 11 -5 39 4/ 55 44 , sl ip op . at 1 8.

In cas es whe re a res ti tu ti on or de r refl ect s joi nt an d se ve ral li ab il it y , tra di ti on al
joi nt an d se ve ral li ab il it y pr in ci pl es wou ld al lo w a d e f e n d a n t to br in g co nt rib ut io n

-2 3-act io ns ag ai ns t ot he r in di vi du al s who co nt rib ut ed t o t h e v ic ti m ’s lo ss es

. See In re

A my Unk no wn, 70 1 F.3 d at 76 9- 70 (ci ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 36 64 (h )). The se sa m e 8

pr in ci pl es wou ld pr ev en t vi ct im s fro m reco up in g m or e th an “ th e fu ll am ou nt ” of th ei r

lo ss es si nc e a de fen da nt or de red to pa y res ti tu ti on co ul d in tro du ce ev id en ce th at th e

vi ct im ha d al read y co ll ect ed so m e or al l of th at res ti tu ti on fro m a de fen da nt in a

di ffer en t cas e. See id

. In so m e in st an ces , de fen da nt s ev en m ay be ab le to ob ta in th is

ev id en ce fro m th e go ve rn m en t, as it ap pe a r s th e go ve rn m en t ke ep s tra ck of at le as t

so m e res ti tu ti on award s. See Gam bl e, Nos

. 1 1

- 5 3 94 /5 54 4, sl ip op

. at 16 (“ The

Gov ern m en t

. . . ha s al read y as se m bl ed a d a t a b a s e to ke ep ab reas t of res ti tu ti on

award s t o Vi ck y

all ov er t he co un try.”).

Bu t reg ard le ss of ho w de fen da nts ca n obt ai n inf

or m at ion ab ou t ot he r res ti tu ti on

award s, th e fact th at Co ng res s dr aft ed th e st at ut e to req ui re de fen da nt s to rei m bu rs e

vi ct im s fo r “ th e fu ll am ou nt ” of th ei r lo ss es re f l e c t s th e po li cy jud gm en t th at ch il d

vi ct im s sh ou ld be fu ll y co m pe ns at ed fo r th ei r lo ss es in th e m os t effi ci en t m an ne r

po ss ib le ; de fen da nt s, rat he r th an ch il d vi ct im s, sh ou ld be ar th e res po ns ib il it y of fil in g

ad di ti on al la wsu it s ag ai ns t ot he r res po ns ib le pa rti es in or de r to ap po r t io n

res po ns ib il it y am on g th em

. Cf

. I n re Am

y Unk no wn, 70 1 F.3 d at 76 0 (n ot in g th at

se ct io n 22 59 “ refl ect s a br oa d res ti tu ti on ary pu rp os e”). Bo th Co ng res s an d th e co ur ts

are fam il ia r wit h th is ap pr oa ch of sh ift in g res po ns ib il i t y fo r ap po rti on m en t to

de fen da nt s, as th is is es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e ap pr oa ch us ed in CERCLA li ti ga ti on

. See,

e.g

. , B u r l i n g t on N. an d San ta Fe Ry

. Co

. v. Uni te d St at es , 55 6 U.S. 59 9, 61 4- 15

The m ajor it y co nc lu de s that se ct ion 36 64 (h ) pe rm it s co ur ts to im po se joi nt an d 8

se ve ral li ab il it y on ly whe n th ere are m ul ti pl e de fen da nt s in a si ng le cas e. See su pr a

at 16 n.6

. Sect io n 36 64 (h ) pr ov id es , “ If th e co ur t fi n d s th at m or e th an 1 de fen da nt
ha s co nt rib ut ed to th e lo ss of a vi ct im

, th e co ur t m ay m ak e each de fen da nt li ab le fo r

pa y m en t of th e f

ul l am ou nt of res ti tu ti on or m ay ap po rti on li ab il it y am on g th e de fen da nt s t o r e f

le ct th e le ve l of co nt rib ut io n to th e vi ct im ’s lo ss an d eco no m ic
ci rcu m st an ces of each de fen da nt .” I ag ree wit h th e Fi fth Ci rcu it th at “ no th i ng in § 36 64 fo rb id s” im

po si ti on of joi nt an d se ve ral li ab il it y o n d e f en da nt s in se pa rat e

cas es . See In re Am

y Unk no wn, 7 01 F.3d at 7 70

.

-2 4-(2 00 9)

. Thi s in te rp ret at io n no t on ly refl ect s th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e, bu t al so

em br aces th e se ns ible pol ic y choi ce th at th e res po ns ib il it y fo r po te nt ia ll y bu rd en so m e

li ti ga ti on sh ou ld fal l on pe op le who co m m it cri m es ag ai ns t ch il dr en , r at he r th an on

th os e ch il dr en

.

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d it s res ti tu ti on award ba se d on two erro ne ou s

pr em is es : (1 ) th a t r e s t i t u ti on can be award ed on ly fo r lo ss es th at th e de fen da nt

pr ox im at el y cau se d an d (2 ) th at res ti tu ti on award s can no t refl ect joi nt an d se ve ral

li ab il it y

. Uni te d St at es v. Fas t, 87 6 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 87

, 10 88 -8 9 (D. Neb

. 20 12 ). Thu s,

Vick y ha s sat is fie d th e se co nd el em en t of m an da m us : th at “ th e di st ric t co ur t clea rly

an d in di sp ut ab ly erre d in th e res ti tu ti on am ou nt it award ed he r

. . . .” See su pr a at 11

.

B.

The th ird an d fin al el em en t th at Vick y m us t s ho w to en ti tl e h er to m an da m us

rel ie f i s th at “ th e writ is ap pr op ria te .” See su pr a at 11

. A wr it of m an da m us “ is an

ex tra or di na ry rem ed y th at is av ai la bl e on ly to co rrec t a cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n.” In

re App le

, In c., 60 2 F.3 d 90 9, 91 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

“ [A] cl ear erro r of la w or cl ear erro r of ju d g men t le ad in g to a pa te nt ly erro ne ou s

res ul t m ay co ns ti tu te a cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Id

. H e r e , Vick y su bm it te d

ev id en ce t ha t s he in cu rred m or e th an $1 .2 m il li on in lo ss es as a res ul t o f he r se xu al

ab us e an d th e su bs eq ue nt di st rib ut io n of he r im ag es

. The di st r i c t c o ur t, ho wev er,

award ed on ly $3 ,33 3 in res ti tu ti on du e to it s erro ne ou s co nc lu si on s th at (1 ) res ti tu ti on

can be award ed on ly fo r lo ss es th at th e de fen da nt pr ox im at el y cau se d an d (2 )

res ti tu ti on award s can no t refle ct joi nt an d sev eral li ab il it y

. Fas t, 87 6 F. Su pp

. 2d at

10 88

. Bec au se th e en ti re pr em is e of th e di st ric t co ur t’s re s t i tu ti on cal cu la ti on was

erro ne ou s, Vick y ha s sh own “ th at th e writ is ap pr op ria te un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces .”

See Ch en ey , 54 2 U.S. at 38 1 (n ot in g th at th is el em en t is le ft to ap pe ll at e co ur t’s

di sc ret io n) ; Un it ed St at es v. Fraz ie r, 65 1 F.3 d 89 9, 91 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (rem an di ng

-2 5-fo r reca lc ul at io n of res ti tu ti on am ou nt whe n or ig in al am ou nt was ba se d on erro ne ou s

lo ss va lu at io n m et ho d)

.

II.

Bec au se Vick y ha s s a t i s fie d al l th ree m an da m us el em en ts

, I wou ld gr an t he r

pe ti ti on fo r m an da m

us

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, I wou ld rem an d fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to

reca lc ul at e Vick y ’s lo ss es un de r se ct io n 22 59 (b )(3 ) an d to en te r a res ti tu ti on or de r

refl ect in g “ th e fu ll am ou nt ” o f he r lo ss es as r eq ui red by sect io n 2 25 9( b) (1 ).

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

-2 6-