Court Opinion

ID: 2721601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-28 15:00:56.140882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:03.201416
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 12-2752
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                         v.

                 Robert M. Fast

    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

           ------------------------------

     Vicky, Child Pornography Victim

 lllllllllllllllllllllInterested party - Appellant
       ___________________________

             No. 12-2769
     ___________________________

  In re: Vicky, Child Pornography Victim

           lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
                  ____________

  Appeal from United States District Court
   for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
               ____________
                            Submitted: August 20, 2014
                              Filed: August 28, 2014
                                   [Published]
                                  ____________

Before MURPHY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       This case is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Vicky,
Child Pornography Victim v. Fast, 134 S. Ct. 1934 (2014). Robert M. Fast pled
guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2252A(a)(2). Vicky challenged the district court’s restitution order. This court
dismissed her appeal, finding that the defendant must “proximately cause the victim’s
losses.” Vicky, Child Pornography Victim v. Fast, 709 F.3d 712, 721 (8th Cir. 2013).
The Supreme Court vacated this court’s judgment and remanded for further
consideration in light of Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014). In
Paroline, the Court found that 18 U.S.C. § 2259 requires “restitution in an amount
that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies
the victim’s general losses.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727.

                                    *******

      The case is remanded to the district court for further consideration in light of
Paroline.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-