Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-06
Citations: 577 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 12-40003
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 577
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40003.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 6, 2014.
James Lee Turner, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:
Julian Gonzalez appealed his sentence following his conviction for receiving child pornography in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), 2252A(b)(1), and 2256. In an earlier opinion, we affirmed the district court's judgment sentencing Gonzalez to 91 months of imprisonment and ordering lifetime supervised release, a special assessment of $100, and restitution of $926,560.09. In affirming the restitution order, we relied on this court's en banc decision in In re Amy Unknown, which held that proof of proximate cause is required for restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 only for "other losses" under § 2259(b)(3)(F), and that no showing of proximate cause is required for restitution for the costs enumerated in § 2259(b)(3)(A) through (E).
In Paroline v. United States, the Supreme Court vacated this court's judgment in In re Amy Unknomi and held that "the proximate-cause requirement applies to all the losses described in § 2259." On July 28, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in this case and remanded for further consideration in light of Paroline. We remand to the district court in order to ascertain the extent of the victim's losses under § 2259 in accordance with Paroline.
We REMAND the case to the district court for reconsideration in light of Paro-line.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. United States v. Gonzalez, 540 Fed.Appx. 465, 466 (5th Cir.2013) (unpublished), vacated by - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2847, - L.Ed.2d
. 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir.2012) (en banc), vacated by Paroline v. United States, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014) and Wright v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1933, 188 L.Ed.2d 955 (2014).
. Gonzalez, 540 Fed.Appx. at 471-72 (citing In re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d at 773).
. - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014).
. Paroline, 134 S.Ct. at 1722, 1730.
. Gonzalez v. United States, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2847, - L.Ed.2d -(2014) (per cu-riam).