Opinion ID: 1040176
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specific Evidence of Proximate Cause

Text: We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Lundquist proximately caused some portion of Amy's losses. The original 2008 Report explains that notifications about new possessors like Lundquist are ongoing triggers for Amy, which cause her problems in the areas of [m]ood regulation, cognitive distortions, feelings of shame, self-blame, and guilt, self-esteem, alcohol abuse, dissociation, academic progress, interpersonal relationships, and vocational success. 2008 Report at 8-9. The 2010 Report confirms that after Lundquist's arrest, many of the symptoms that Amy evidenced in [the 2008 Report] remain, and some have worsened. 2010 Report at 3. The 2011 Report specifies that: (1) her poor interpersonal choices are seen as direct effects of the previous and ongoing abuse of Amy on the Internet and as a child; (2) her inability to set or fulfill career goals is exacerbated by her awareness of this pervasiveness of her image on the Internet which makes her fearful of interacting with many people outside the comfort of her familiar surroundings; and (3) her inability to move forward is also inhibited by a sense of pervasive fear . . . of her uncle . . . as well as the pervasive fear of multitudes of - 33 - men out there who could recognize her from a picture and have already abused her in their fantasies. 2011 Report at 4. In short, [i]t is clear that Amy continues to suffer from the ongoing effects of her victimization from child abuse and the continued use of her image by child pornography viewers. Id. Because the sequence of events following Lundquist's arrest supports the reasonable inference that Amy learned about Lundquist before visiting Dr. Silberg for the re-evaluations, the district court reasonably determined that Lundquist caused part of the harm described in the 2010 and 2011 Reports and thus was more likely than not a proximate cause of some of Amy's losses. Moreover, Lundquist submitted a letter in connection with sentencing, in which he admitted having reviewed the victim impact statements of the children depicted in the images in his possession and acknowledged that he had made them my vict[i]ms by my actions, that they relive it 24/7. Accordingly, Lundquist has admitted that his actions harmed Amy. Although such evidence is not necessary to show proximate cause, it provides additional support for the district court's finding in this instance. Lundquist argues that the district court abused its discretion by making its findings without holding an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. It was - 34 - well within the district court's discretion to decline to hold a full-blown evidentiary hearing because Lundquist had an adequate opportunity to present his position. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d at 258 (quotation omitted). Lundquist had ample opportunity to raise objections to Amy's supporting materials, but failed to do so. Instead, he made primarily legal arguments that did not require a hearing to resolve. The only evidentiary relief that Lundquist sought was the opportunity to depose Amy or learn her true identity, but [n]o victim shall be required to participate in any phase of a restitution order. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(g)(1). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by relying only on the parties' submissions.