The issue presented to the en banc court is whether 18 U.S.C. §2259 requires a district court to find that a defendant's criminal acts proximately caused a crime victim's losses before the district court may order restitution, even though that statute only contains a "proximate result" requirement in §2259(b)(3)(F). The statute does not require the government to show proximate cause. The plain language of the statute dictates that a district court must award restitution for the full amount of those losses. The district court's judgment is affirmed. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09--41238, 11-19-2012.
In Re: Amy Unknown
November 27, 2012
This article requires premium access
This article requires premium access to Texas Lawyer. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.