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

Heading: Mya and Jenny

Text: Next, as to victims Mya and Jenny, Rothenberg argues the government failed to submit reliable or sufficient evidence of their losses because neither of those victims had psychological or economic reports detailing their losses. In opposition, the government asserts that it need not submit expert reports to establish a victim’s losses and that the evidence presented in support of Mya’s and Jenny’s restitution requests provided a sufficient basis for the district court’s awards. 11 The government bears the burden of proving the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Osman, 853 F.3d at 1189. The government must do so “with evidence bearing sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, because “the determination of the restitution amount is by nature an inexact science,” a district court “may accept a reasonable estimate of the loss based on the evidence presented.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 We disagree with the government’s contention that Rothenberg did not preserve his challenge to Mya’s and Jenny’s restitution awards on the ground that they were not supported by competent evidence. Accordingly, we review the factual findings underlying the district court’s restitution orders as to Mya and Jenny for clear error, Osman, 853 F.3d at 1188, and the amount of their restitution awards for an abuse of discretion, see Robertson, 493 F.3d at 1330; see also Paroline, 572 U.S. at 462, 134 S. Ct at 1729 (recognizing that “[d]istrict courts routinely exercise wide discretion . . . in fashioning restitution orders”). 60 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 61 of 67
Regarding Mya, the district court did not clearly err in determining that sufficient evidence supported Mya’s restitution request. One of Mya’s counsel, Carol Hepburn, submitted a signed declaration stating Mya needed therapy and/or medical care. Rothenberg faults the district court for accepting the “self-serving” estimate provided by Mya’s counsel that Mya’s future medical costs would likely exceed $100,000. In her declaration, Hepburn explained that the $100,000 estimate was not just pulled out of thin air. Rather, it was based on Hepburn’s experience representing eight other, similarly situated child pornography victims. Indeed, the restitution exhibits presented to the district court show that Hepburn represented or co-represented several of the other victims in this case—Sierra, Pia, Sarah, and Vicky. Considering Hepburn’s demonstrated experience in this area, it was not unreasonable for the district court to consider her estimate as reliable evidence of Mya’s likely future costs. See id. Furthermore, counsel Hepburn explained that Mya was part of the same child pornography series as Pia. Though a psychological evaluation was unavailable for Mya at the time of the restitution hearing, 12 her co-victim Pia was 12 In challenging Mya’s and Jenny’s awards, Rothenberg also argues that a victim must always supply an expert medical or psychological report to support her restitution request. Rothenberg cites no caselaw for this proposition, and nothing in either Paroline or our own precedent establishes such a rigid requirement. See Osman, 853 F.3d at 1189 (requiring only that the government present evidence “bearing sufficient indicia of reliability”). Though such 61 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 62 of 67 able to submit a preliminary evaluation. That evaluation indicated that, at a bare minimum, Pia had estimated therapy costs of $81,900 and emphasized that this estimate reflected “only the current, most critical needs” for Pia, who like Mya was still a minor, and did not account for the full extent of her losses or the services she would require over the course of her lifetime. And notably, Rothenberg does not challenge the evidentiary basis for Pia’s restitution award in this case. That Mya’s co-victim Pia had preliminary estimated costs of at least $81,900 is a further indicator that counsel Hepburn’s $100,000 total cost estimate for Mya was reasonable and appropriately relied upon by the district court. See id. On this record, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court was mistaken in concluding that sufficient evidence supported Mya’s restitution request. See Robertson, 493 F.3d at 1330. Nor did the district court abuse its broad discretion in awarding Mya her requested restitution amount of $5,000. See id. Here, the district court properly identified Paroline as the correct legal standard for awarding restitution in child pornography cases. In setting the amount of Mya’s restitution award, the district court addressed several relevant Paroline factors, noting that: (1) Rothenberg possessed one image of Mya; (2) no other defendant was yet ordered to pay expert reports are undoubtedly helpful to district court’s in fashioning a restitution award, they are by no means the only way to establish a reasonable estimate of a victim’s losses. 62 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 63 of 67 restitution to Mya; (3) Mya had estimated losses exceeding $100,000; and (4) Rothenberg neither created nor distributed Mya’s images. Paroline, 572 U.S. at 460, 134 S. Ct. at 1728. In light of these factors, the district court determined that Mya’s $5,000 restitution request was reasonable. Given the wide discretion afforded by Paroline to district courts in this context, we cannot say this determination was unreasonable. See id. at 462, 134 S. Ct. at 1729; Jordan, 582 F.3d at 1249.
Based on the more limited record as to Jenny, we agree with Rothenberg that the district court clearly erred in determining there was sufficient evidence to support Jenny’s $42,600 request. In support of her restitution request, Jenny’s counsel submitted a restitution cover letter and a victim impact statement from Jenny. In the letter, Jenny’s counsel requested restitution in the following amounts: (1) $12,500 to pay for psychological and economic reports; (2) $5,000 in attorney’s fees related to her request in this case; (3) $100 in legal fees related to her request in this case; and (4) $25,000 for “the defendant’s appropriate share of the general losses caused to Jenny.” Like Mya, at the time of the restitution hearing, Jenny was still in the process of obtaining expert reports documenting her total losses. Unlike Mya, however, Jenny’s separate counsel did not provide any reasonable estimate of what 63 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 64 of 67 those total losses might be. Indeed, counsel did not provide any estimate of what Jenny’s total losses might be. Rather, in asserting that $25,000 was Rothenberg’s “appropriate share” of Jenny’s losses, counsel relied on (1) a proposed statute that would set a minimum restitution award of $25,000 for possession of child pornography, and (2) Masha’s law, 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a), which creates a civil cause of action for victims who suffered personal injury as a result of a child pornography offense and sets a liquidated damages amount of $150,000. This evidence is sufficient to show that Jenny has incurred costs of $17,600—to pay for expert reports and legal fees—in connection with her restitution request in this case, 13 yet it is not sufficient to establish what proportion of Jenny’s as-yet-undetermined total losses Rothenberg proximately caused. Jenny’s counsel suggested that the $150,000 liquidated damages amount in Masha’s Law represents a reasonable estimate by Congress of the minimum amount of total damages suffered by a child pornography victim. But the damages available to a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit may be quite different from the concrete “costs incurred” for which § 2259 provides recompense. See 18 U.S.C. § 2259(c)(2). For example, a plaintiff in a civil damages suit under § 2255(a) may be able to recover for noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering or mental 13 We note that the $12,500 portion of those costs for psychological and economic reports would not necessarily be fully attributable to Rothenberg, as Jenny will, unfortunately but undoubtedly, need to use those reports in support of future requests against other defendants. 64 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 65 of 67 and emotional distress, that are not available in a restitution proceeding under § 2259. See Doe v. Hesketh, 828 F.3d 159, 170 (3d Cir. 2016). As such, we do not see that Masha’s Law provides much guidance in the present context. Similarly, Jenny’s counsel’s reliance on proposed legislation setting a minimum $25,000 restitution award for child pornography possession offenses also provides little to no guidance here. While Congress certainly would be well within its rights to establish such a mandatory minimum restitution amount in these cases, it had not done so at the time of Rothenberg’s restitution hearing. 14 Thus, the district court was required to instead follow Paroline’s framework, which requires an individualized assessment of each particular defendant’s restitutionary liability based on his conduct and relative role in the causal process. Paroline, 572 U.S. at 445, 458-59, 462, 134 S. Ct. at 1720, 1727-29. Imposing a pre-set minimum amount of restitution based solely on the type of offense Rothenberg committed does not comply with Paroline’s framework, and the government did not submit evidence from which the district court reasonably could have determined that $25,000 was Rothenberg’s relative share of Jenny’s losses. 14 Congress recently passed, and the president signed, a different version of the bill Jenny’s counsel referred to, but that version sets the minimum restitution amount much lower, at $3,000. See Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-299, 132 Stat. 4383 (2018). 65 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 66 of 67 It is indisputable that Jenny has suffered some, likely large amount of losses from the online traffic in her images. See id. at 457, 134 S. Ct. at 1726. It is also indisputable that Rothenberg, who possessed 34 images and 1 video of Jenny, is responsible for some, possibly significant amount of those losses. Id. But the government bears the burden of proving at least a reasonable estimate of that amount based on reliable evidence, and it has not satisfied that burden here. Osman, 853 F.3d at 1189. In the absence of competent evidence to support the award, the district court clearly erred in ordering Rothenberg to pay $42,600 in restitution to Jenny. See id. We therefore vacate the district court’s restitution award as to Jenny and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the district court should allow Jenny to supplement her restitution request with evidence of her losses. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) (allowing a victim to seek an amended restitution order if the victim discovers additional losses after sentencing). The district court should then determine, in light of all the available evidence and the Paroline factors, the portion of Jenny’s losses for which Rothenberg is responsible. Paroline, 572 U.S. at 458-60, 134 S. Ct. at 1727-28. 66 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 67 of 67