Opinion ID: 5813480
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restitution for tutoring and lost wages

Text: The Government also failed to meet its burden to award restitution for tutoring and lost wages. Again, as in district court, it relies on Dr. Missar’s report; and again, the report does not even attempt to establish but-for causation. Rather than disaggregate the education and income losses attributable to Mr. Anthony’s offenses, Dr. Missar opined that “the impact that sex trafficking had on [R.W.] has . . . impaired her ability to work to her potential.” App., Vol. 4 at 245. Dr. Missar did not even try to differentiate between the losses R.W. suffered at the hands of other abusers and the losses caused by Mr. Anthony’s offenses. Instead, he combined all of R.W.’s losses from the sex trafficking incidents. Dr. Missar even failed to mention Mr. Anthony’s name or his offenses of conviction when discussing his recommendation for restitution for R.W.’s tutoring and lost wages. The Government points to Dr. Missar’s methodology,12 which led to a lower figure than what the Government requested during the initial restitution proceedings. Aplt. Br. at 34-35. But that again misses the mark. Indeed, Dr. Missar’s methodology is the problem. It fails to differentiate between the losses attributable to Mr. Anthony’s offenses and the losses attributable to the other individuals who trafficked R.W. The district court thus did not err in denying the Government’s request for restitution for tutoring and lost wages. 12 Dr. Missar calculated lost wages based on Social Security Administration data to approximate the lower earnings R.W. would earn the rest of her life. Aplt. Br. at 34. 17 Appellate Case: 21-6015 Document: 010110630862 Date Filed: 01/12/2022 Page: 18