Court Opinion

ID: 9380935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 18:00:40.489094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.553320
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10194        Document: 00516683567             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/21/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-10194
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                March 21, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   George John Maslovar,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:21-CR-87-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         George John Maslovar pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to
   possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor, in violation
   of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) & (b)(2). The district court awarded $7,000
   in restitution to one of the victims in the photos under 18 U.S.C. § 2259.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10194       Document: 00516683567          Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/21/2023

                                     No. 22-10194

   Maslovar challenges both the legality and the amount of the restitution
   award.
            We generally review “a restitution order’s legality de novo and its
   amount for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Villalobos, 879 F.3d 169, 171
   (5th Cir. 2018). The Government argues that plain-error review applies to
   some of Maslovar’s arguments because Maslovar failed to preserve specific
   arguments on the legality and amount of restitution. Maslovar argues that de
   novo review applies regardless of whether he preserved his legality argument
   and that he preserved all arguments on the restitution amount. We need not
   resolve which standard of review applies because Maslovar’s arguments fail
   even under the less deferential de novo review. See Hernandez v. United
   States, 888 F.3d 219, 222–23 (5th Cir. 2018).
            Maslovar first contends that the identified victim, referred to as
   “Sarah,” cannot be considered a victim of his offense for purposes of § 2259
   because the Government did not prove that he possessed Sarah’s image
   during the temporal scope of the indictment, which he asserts was from
   October 17, 2020, to July 14, 2021. Even if we agreed that the indictment was
   limited in scope to that period, the record demonstrates that Maslovar
   possessed Sarah’s image during that time frame. Accordingly, the district
   court did not err in finding that Sarah was entitled to restitution under
   § 2259. See § 2259(c)(4); Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434, 445 (2014).
            Maslovar next argues that the district court erred in determining the
   amount of restitution under Paroline. He makes two arguments: (1) the
   district court failed to assess all of the Paroline factors and (2) the district
   court relied on irrelevant factors. First, the district court stated at sentencing
   that it had conducted a Paroline analysis and agreed with the Government’s
   view of the factors. The court also lowered the amount based on Maslovar’s
   arguments on the factors at sentencing. Sure, the district court did not make

                                           2
Case: 22-10194      Document: 00516683567          Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/21/2023

                                    No. 22-10194

   explicit findings on each Paroline factor, but it was not required to do so. See
   United States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645, 654 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Second, none of the factors the district court considered were
   irrelevant to determining the amount of loss proximately caused by Maslovar.
   Although the court considered factors that were not expressly delineated in
   Paroline, that case does not exhaustively list factors that a district court can
   consider. See Paroline, 572 U.S. at 460. The record reflects that the district
   court followed Paroline’s directive to “assess as best it [could] from available
   evidence the significance of [Maslovar’s] conduct in light of the broader
   causal process that produced [Sarah’s] losses,” and we ascertain no error.
   Paroline, 572 U.S. at 459.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3