U.S. v. Sainz

Dist. Ct. did not err in ordering defendant to pay $8,387.43 in restitution to one victim at issue in his conviction on transporting and possessing child pornography charges, even though defendant asserted that Dist. Ct. used wrong formula to calculate said restitution order, based on contention that he was not personally responsible for producing said images. Dist. Ct. calculated restitution order by noting that defendant was 136^th offender who had been prosecuted and ordered to pay restitution to said victim, and Dist. Ct. could properly base restitution order by simply dividing victim’s total losses by 136. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that treating him same as other 135 offenders violated Paroline, 134 S.Ct. 1710, and further found that restitution order was substantively reasonable for offender who possessed six images of victim. Ct., though, ordered limited remand for Dist. Ct. to reconsider/rewrite three conditions of supervised release that limited defendant’s access to sexually explicit images and to unsupervised contact with children, as well directed him to pay costs associated with computer monitoring, since said conditions were either too vague or were overbroad.