Opinion ID: 4394859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Eighth and Fifth Circuits’ Decisions

Text: We start with the Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Bordman, 895 F.3d 1048, 1058-59 (8th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 2019 WL 1886056 (U.S. Apr. 29, 41 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 42 of 67 2019), a restitution case involving a defendant convicted of only possessing child pornography. In Bordman, the Eighth Circuit expressly held that a district court is not required to formally disaggregate categories of loss before ordering restitution, such as the loss caused by the initial abuser. Id. at 1058-59. In doing so, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s $3,000 award of restitution to a victim where the district court considered multiple factors, including: (1) the 1/n method, which took into account the number of defendants (32) who had already paid the victim restitution plus 1 (the defendant Bordman), for a total of 33; (2) the child pornography being videos with two copies of the same video in different folders; and (3) the “very aggravating factor” of the nature of the video. Id. at 1052-53, 1059. The victim’s losses included $91,900 in therapy, related expenses, and for a vocational assessment and counseling, legal costs of $10,187.13, and attorney’s fees. Id. at 1052. At the sentencing hearing, the government took the sum of $95,295.71 ($91,900 plus one third of the attorney’s fees) and divided it by 33 defendants, resulting in the sum of $2,887.75. Id. at 1052-53. One-third of the attorney’s fees was used because this same attorney had represented three victims. Id. at 1052. The district court imposed a $3,000 restitution amount for the victim. Id. at 1054. On appeal, the defendant-possessor Bordman specifically claimed that “the district court abused its discretion by failing to disaggregate the harm caused by the 42 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 43 of 67 initial abuse from the harm that his later possession caused.” Id. at 1058. In rejecting that claim, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that “one of the Paroline factors already accounts for disaggregation”—namely, “whether the defendant had any connection to the initial production of the images.” Id. at 1059 (quoting Paroline, 572 U.S. at 460, 134 S. Ct. at 1728). The Eighth Circuit “decline[d] to transform” this disaggregation factor “from a ‘rough guidepost’ into a ‘rigid formula.’” Id. (quoting Paroline, 572 U.S. at 460, 134 S. Ct. at 1728). The Fifth Circuit also has rejected, under plain error review, a defendant’s challenge to restitution awards that relied on psychological reports that “did not separate the losses caused by [the defendant possessor] from the losses caused by other abusers.” United States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645, 654-55 n.4 (5th Cir. 2018). The Fifth Circuit reasoned that nothing in Paroline clearly required victims to present a new psychological report in each case that “disaggregates a defendant’s conduct from all other possible sources of the victim’s losses.” Id. The Fifth Circuit approved the district court’s use of a restitution method which awarded each victim (1) a base $5,000 amount of restitution, plus (2) an additional sum of $1,409 for each image of the victim that the defendant possessed because the district court discussed factors that bore on the relative significance of the defendant’s conduct and the district court was not required to make findings as to all of the Paroline factors. Id. at 653-54. 43 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 44 of 67