United States v. Berk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) In general.—Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty authorized by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense under this chapter. (b) Scope and nature of order.— (1) Directions.—The order of restitution under this section shall direct the defendant to pay the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim's losses as determined by the court pursuant to paragraph (2). (2) Enforcement.—An order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664 in the same manner as an order under section 3663A. (3) Definition.—For purposes of this subsection, the term "full amount of the victim’s losses” includes any costs incurred by the victim for— (A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care; (B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation; (C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses; (D) lost income; (E) attorneys' fees, as well as other costs incurred; and (F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense. (4) Order mandatory.— (A) The issuance of a restitution order under this section is mandatory. (B) A court may not decline to issue an order under this section because of— (i) the economic circumstances of the defendant; or (ii) the fact that a victim has, or is entitled to, receive compensation for his or her injuries from the proceeds of insur”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 701 F. Supp. 2d 814 - United States v. Church · 672 F. Supp. 2d 781 - United States v. Paroline

2. “At one extreme, courts have awarded the entire amount requested without any discussion as to proximate causation. See, e.g., United States v. Staples, No. 09-14017-CR, 2009 WL 2827204 , at (S.D.Fla. Sept. 2, 2009). At the other extreme, some courts have declined to order any restitution based on the lack of evidence showing a quantifiable loss proximately caused by the offense of conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Simon, 2009 WL 2424673 , at (N.D.Cal. Aug. 7, 2009). Some courts appear to have adopted a set amount for each defendant convicted of possession of child pornography. For example, the Central District of California seems to routinely order restitution of $5000 while the Eastern District of California routinely orders restitution of $3000. See United States v. Brown, No. 2:08—cr-1435-RGK-1 (C.D.Cal. filed Oct. 5, 2009) (awarding $5,000); United States v. Ferenci, No. 1:08-cr-0414 AWI, 2009 WL 2579102 , at (E.D.Cal. Aug. 19, 2009) [ (awarding $3,000) ]. Additionally, in some cases, the Government and the defendant have stipulated to a restitution amount. See United States v. Granato, No. 2:08-cr-198 (D. Nev. filed Aug. 28, 2009).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 689 F. Supp. 2d 1102 - United States v. Woods

3. “It is uncontroversial to order restitution when the Defendant is convicted of the actual physical abuse of a child or of producing images constituting child pornography. But the victim and the Government have only recently begun seeking restitutions from the end-users or possessors of child pornography. The original harm that is the basis of the alleged victim’s claim in this case was the result of the recording of sexual abuse and subsequent dissemination of those images. In the case of Amy, the abuse was perpetrated by her uncle, who also produced images and sent them electronically. Under the theory propounded by counsel for the victim and adopted by the Government, the harm suffered as a result of the defendant’s conduct is the victim knowing that images of the abuse have been circulated. However, this harm, which is in essence a civil claim of pain and suffering damages, is incurred, whether or not the defendant possessed, or received those images.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 701 F. Supp. 2d 814 - United States v. Church