Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Xavier DEGOLLADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-18
Citations: 573 F. App'x 363
Docket Number: No. 12-40469
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Xavier DEGOLLADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 363–364

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Xavier DEGOLLADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40469.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 18, 2014.
John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Xavier Degollado was convicted of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2225A(a)(2)(A). On appeal, Degollado challenged the resulting sentence of imprisonment and order of restitution. We affirmed. United States v. Degollado, 547 Fed.Appx. 592 (5th Cir.2013).
The Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Paroline v. United States, -U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014). In Paroline, the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2259 requires "restitution in an amount that comports with the defendant's relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim's general losses." 134 S.Ct. at 1727.
Accordingly, we VACATE the order of restitution, and we REMAND for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Paroline. We once more AFFIRM the sentence of imprisonment.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED and REMANDED IN PART.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.