Opinion ID: 183811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did McDaniel's conduct proximately cause Vicky's losses?

Text: McDaniel next argues that his conduct did not proximately cause Vicky's harm. Instead, he contends that her father and the distribution of the images caused her harm, and by the time he possessed the images, the harm had already been done. He asserts that restitution is appropriate only in cases where the defendant actually sexually abused a child or produced the child pornography because, in those cases, the defendant's conduct actually harmed the child. We disagree. Dr. Green explained that each NCMEC notification adds to the slow acid drip of trauma and exacerbates Vicky's emotional issues. He testified that each notification is extraordinarily distressing and emotionally painful to Vicky and that Vicky suffers each time an individual views an image depicting her abuse. We are not `left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). Consequently, the district court did not clearly err in finding that McDaniel's possession proximately caused Vicky's losses. [2] AFFIRMED.