United States v. Lundquist
| Decision Date | 14 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:10–CR–0417.,5:10–CR–0417. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Avery LUNDQUIST, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the N.D.N.Y., of Counsel Tamara Thomson, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Syracuse, NY, for Government.
Lisa A. Peebles, Federal Public Defender for the N.D.N.Y., of Counsel Melissa A. Tuohey, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, for Defendant.
On June 17, 2011, the Court sentenced Avery Lundquist (“Defendant”) following his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), 2256(8)(A), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) (). Before sentencing, the Government requested that the Court order Defendant to pay restitution to his crime's “victim” in the amount of $3,384,917.00 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259. During sentencing, the Court reserved decision on the issue of restitution, and indicated that it would decide the matter in the future. This is the Court's decision on the issue of restitution.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUNDA. Government's Request for Restitution
On December 22, 2010, Defendant pleaded guilty of committing a crime under Chapter 110 of Title 18 of the United States Code. (Text Minute Entry filed Dec. 22, 2010; Dkt. No. 27.) More specifically, Defendant pleaded guilty to the following two crimes: (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and 2256(8)(A) by receiving child pornography “on or about February 14, 2010”; and (2) violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) by possessing child pornography “[o]n or about March 5, 2010.” (Dkt. No. 8, at 1–2 [Indictment]; Text Minute Entry filed Dec. 22, 2010; Dkt. No. 27.)
On June 3, 2011, the Government requested in writing, inter alia, that the Court order Defendant to pay restitution to his crime's “victim,” identified as “Amy,” 1 in the amount of $3,384,917.00, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259. Joining in the Government's request was “Amy's” representative. (Dkt. No. 35.) On June 7, 2011, Defendant opposed that request in writing, and requested an evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. Nos. 23, 24.) On June 17, 2011, the Court heard oral argument from counsel on the issue of restitution. (Text Minute Entry dated June 17, 2011; Dkt. No. 31.)
At the time, the Court indicated its inclination to impose restitution in the amount of $37,126.50, which was generally based the fact that $48,483.00 had been awarded to Amy in U.S. v. Aumais, 08–CR–0711, 2010 WL 3034730 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2010) (Sharpe, J.), adopting,2010 WL 3033821 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2010) (Homer, M. J.), and the fact that approximately a year and a half had passed since the issuance of that decision (warranting a certain discount of that amount). (Dkt. No. 31, at 3–5.) However, the Court reserved decision on the issue of restitution, in order to (1) give the Government an opportunity to consult with Amy, to see whether that amount was acceptable to her or whether the Government wanted a further opportunity to submit evidence, and (2) await guidance from the Second Circuit in the case of U.S. v. Aumais, 656 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2011), an appeal from U.S. v. Aumais, 08–CR–0711, 2010 WL 3034730 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2010). (Dkt. No. 31, at 3–8.) As a result, the Court indicated that it would decide the issue within 90 days. ( Id. at 9, 24.)
On August 12, 2011, the Government reported to the Court that Amy was satisfied with the Court's proposed restitution amount of $37,126.50, and thus was not requesting a hearing. (Dkt. No. 32.) However, on August 15, 2011, Defendant objected to the Court's proposed restitution amount of $37,126.50, and repeated his request for an evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. No. 33.) On September 8, 2011, the Second Circuit issued its decision in U.S. v. Aumais, 656 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2011). That same day, the Court extended the deadline for its decision until December 14, 2011, in light of the intervening change in controlling law created by U.S. v. Aumais, 656 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2011). (Text Order filed Sept. 8, 2011.)
As stated earlier, this is the Court's decision.
Because this Decision and Order is intended primarily for the review of the parties (who have demonstrated an adequate understanding of the issues raised by the Government's request), the Court need not, and will not, recite in detail the parties' arguments on the Government's request. ( See generally Dkt. No. 22 [Government's Memo. of Law and Exhibits]; Dkt. Nos. 23–25 [Def.'s Memo. of Law and Exhibit]; Dkt. No. 33 .)
Rather, the Court will note only that, at their core, the parties' briefs raise the following five issues: (1) under the circumstances, must the Court hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding the Government's request for restitution; (2) was Amy a “victim” of Defendant's crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2259; (3) does 18 U.S.C. § 2259 limit the losses that Amy may recover pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3)(A)-(E) to those proximately caused by Defendant's commission of the crime in question (or does it permit some other sort of causation, such as factual causation); (4) applying the correct standard of causation, what amount of Amy's losses were caused by Defendant's commission of the crime in question; and (5) is it permissible, and appropriate, under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, for the Court to hold Defendant jointly and severally liable for payment of the full amount of restitution (rather than apportioning liability among the individuals to reflect the level of contribution to Amy's loss and economic circumstances of each individual)?
The Government bears the burden of proof on each of these five issues by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) ( ).
B. Governing Statute
Section 2259 of Title 18 of the United States Code defines the individual harmed “as a result” of a defendant's crime committed under Chapter 110 of the United States Code as the crime's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lundquist
...her first request for restitution in 2008 and has since submitted requests in more than 100 cases. See United States v. Lundquist, 847 F.Supp.2d 364, 375 (N.D.N.Y.2011).23. Amy Learns About Lundquist After law enforcement agents arrested Lundquist on March 5, 2010, they submitted the pornog......
-
United States v. Getto
...her first request for restitution in 2008 and has since submitted requests in more than 100 cases. See United States v. Lundquist, 847 F. Supp. 2d 364, 375 (N.D.N.Y. 2011).2 3. Amy Learns About Lundquist After law enforcement agents arrested Lundquist on March 5, 2010, they submitted the po......