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

Heading: McGarity

Text: Rothenberg’s next argument concerns victims Sierra, Jane, Sarah, Vicky, Amy, and Casseaopeia. 9 As to these six victims, Rothenberg argues that the district court erred in relying on loss estimates that were based on psychological evaluations conducted before his arrest and thus before these victims learned of his criminal possession offense, citing this Court’s prior precedent in United States v. McGarity, 669 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2012). The government responds that the portion of McGarity on which Rothenberg relies was overruled by Paroline. In McGarity, which was decided prior to Paroline, this Court concluded that a psychological evaluation performed before the defendant’s arrest and prosecution could not show the harm to the victim. 669 F.3d at 1269. More specifically, for proximate cause to exist in a child pornography case, “there must be a causal connection between the actions of the end-user and the harm suffered by the 8 In this case, the government’s submission and calculations used the 1/n method, but only as a starting point for the district court’s exercise of discretion and then application of the Paroline factors. While we affirm the thorough and multifactored process used in this case, we caution that the application of a strict 1/n approach, in which the only thing the district court does is divide the total loss amount by the total number of defendants who have been ordered to pay restitution, ordinarily will not meet the individualized assessment requirement of Paroline. 9 On appeal, Rothenberg does not challenge the evidentiary basis for victim Pia’s $5,000 restitution award. 56 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 57 of 67 victim.” Id. The McGarity Court determined that, in that case, the government failed to provide any basis for determining “whether [the defendant’s] possession of child pornography proximately caused any of [the victim’s] harm,” given the victim’s psychological evaluation occurred before the defendant’s arrest and prosecution. Id. As such, the McGarity Court determined that the psychological evaluation could not show the harm caused to the victim by the particular defendant’s conduct in that case. Id. at 1269-70 (citing with approval the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Aumais, 656 F.3d 147, 154 (2d Cir. 2011), that remarked that the victim’s psychological evaluation preceded the defendant’s arrest, and thus it could not demonstrate the impact on the victim caused by that defendant). In other words, the McGarity Court concluded that to establish proximate cause, the government must show that the victim actually learned of the particular defendant’s possession of her images. See id. at 1269-70. We agree with the government that this aspect of McGarity was abrogated by Paroline. See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.”). In requiring to show harm that the victim was aware of a particular defendant’s conduct, the McGarity Court essentially required that 57 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 58 of 67 the government establish a direct, but-for causal link between some portion of the victim’s losses and the specific defendant’s offense. See McGarity, 669 F.3d at 1269-70. As discussed above, however, Paroline rejected exactly that sort of direct or but-for causation requirement in setting out its new standard. See Paroline, 572 U.S. at 450-59, 134 S. Ct. at 1722-28. In Paroline, the Supreme Court recognized that “it is not possible to prove that [a victim’s] losses would be less (and by how much) but for one possessor’s individual role in the large, loosely connected network through which her images circulate,” nor is there “a practical way to isolate some subset of the victim’s general losses that [the defendant’s] conduct alone would have been sufficient to cause.” Id. at 450-51, 134 S. Ct. at 1723. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court explained that “it is indisputable that [the defendant] was a part of the overall phenomenon that caused [the victim’s] general losses.” Id. at 457, 134 S. Ct. at 1726. In Paroline, the Supreme Court thus held that, “[i]n this special context” where it is clear both that the defendant possessed images of the victim and that the victim has outstanding losses as a result of the traffic in her images, “but where it is impossible to trace a particular amount of those losses to the individual defendant,” courts should order restitution “in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s general losses.” Id. at 458, 134 S. Ct. at 1727. The Supreme Court held that the 58 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 59 of 67 government need not establish that some specific portion of the victim’s losses were directly caused by the defendant possessor’s conduct, as McGarity had required. See id.; McGarity, 669 F.3d at 1269. Rather, the government need establish only that the victim suffered losses from the traffic in her images and that the defendant contributed to those losses by possessing her images, regardless of whether the victim was specifically aware of the defendant’s conduct. Paroline, 572 U.S. at 458, 134 S. Ct. at 1727; see also id. at 442, 450, 134 S. Ct at 1718, 1723 (noting that the parties “stipulated that the victim did not know who Paroline was and that none of her claimed losses flowed from any specific knowledge about him or his offense conduct,” and the victim therefore could not show her losses “would have been any different but for Paroline’s offense”). We therefore conclude that the portion of McGarity’s holding requiring the government to show that a child pornography victim was aware of, and specifically harmed by, a particular defendant possessor’s conduct was abrogated by Paroline. See Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352. Consequently, Rothenberg’s challenge to the restitution awards for six victims—Sierra, Jane, Sarah, Vicky, Amy, and Casseaopeia—based on that portion of McGarity fails. 10 10 The government asserts that Rothenberg did not specifically raise this before-my-arrest argument in the district court, and it should be reviewed only for plain error. We need not decide that issue; regardless of the standard of review, this claim fails because Paroline overruled this part of McGarity and Paroline was decided before Rothenberg’s offense. 59 Case: 17-12349 Date Filed: 05/08/2019 Page: 60 of 67