United States v. Padilla
| Decision Date | 13 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:17-cr-00137-DCN |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALFREDO PADILLA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
This matter comes before the Court on the matter of restitution. The Defendant, Alfredo Padilla, objects to the amount of restitution requested by the Government. On May 8, 2018, the Court heard oral argument and testimony on restitution and took the matter under advisement. For the reasons outlined below, the Court GRANTS restitution in the amount of $32,884.80.
On May 23, 2017, the Government charged Padilla by Indictment with one Count of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). The Indictment stemmed from allegations that Padilla did knowingly persuade, entice, or coerce a minor female victim (hereinafter referred to as "Jane Doe") into taking pictures of herself in the nude—specifically her vagina, vaginal areas, and breasts.
On September 22, 2017, a Plea Agreement was filed with the Court. As part of that Plea Agreement, Padilla agreed to pay restitution to the victim in an amount to be stipulated to by the parties or determined by the Court.
On October 30, 2017, Padilla pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment and was subsequently sentenced on March 12, 2018, to 180 months incarceration, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release.
The Mandatory Restitution Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2259, requires restitution for offenses involving sexual exploitation and other abuse of children. United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2011). "The order of restitution must 'direct the defendant to pay the victim . . . the full amount of the victim's losses.'" Id. (quoting § 2259(b)(1)). Section 2259 defines the phrase "full amount of the victim's losses" as follows:
18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3). Under the standard set forth by the Ninth Circuit, the Court must make three determinations in order to award restitution under section 2259: "(1) that the individual seeking restitution is a 'victim' of the defendant's offense; (2) that the defendant's offense was a proximate cause of the victim's losses; and (3) that the losses so caused can be calculated with 'some reasonable certainty.'" Kennedy, 643 F.3d at 1263 (internal citations omitted).
The record demonstrates that Jane Doe and her grandmother are victims and the government has provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between Padilla's offense and their losses. Therefore, only the third Kennedy "determination" is at issue, i.e., the calculation of each victim's losses. See id. at 1263.
During oral argument, the Government called Cassidy Roske with Bright Tomorrows Child Advocacy Center to testify. Ms. Roske provided counseling services to Jane Doe. Ms. Roske estimated that it would cost between $25,000 and $40,000 for Jane Doe's current and future counseling sessions. During Ms. Roske's testimony, Exhibits A-F were admitted into evidence with the Defendant objecting to the admittance of Exhibits B and F. One of those Exhibits admitted was a letter submitted by Dr. Manuel Sierra. Dr. Sierra estimated Jane Doe's future counseling sessions to be in the tens of thousands of dollars over the course of Jane Doe's lifetime. Although Dr. Sierra's estimation is not exact, other Circuits have held that ". . . the determination of the restitution amount is bynature an inexact science," U.S. v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711, 728 (11th Cir. 2014), and that the court "may accept a reasonable estimate of the loss based on the evidence presented." Id. See also, United States v. Jones, No. 17-1450, 2018 WL 4053870, at *9 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2018) () (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). Here, Padilla argues that the amount requested by the Government for Jane Doe's losses is not reasonably certain as there is no guarantee that Jane Doe will continue with counseling throughout her lifetime. The Government bears the burden of "proving the amount of the victim[s'] losses." Kennedy, 643 F.3d at 1261 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e)). "In carrying this burden, . . . the government must provide the court with enough evidence to allow the court to estimate the 'full amount of the victim[s'] losses' with 'some reasonable certainty.'" Id. (citing United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2007)). "While this is not a requirement approaching mathematical precision, a restitutionary award under § 2259 will be improper if the district court must engage in arbitrary calculations to determine the amount of the victim[s'] losses. . .." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In sum, although there is no guarantee that Jane Doe will require Counseling for her entire life, Congress is well aware that children victimized by sexual abuse often do not recover quickly from their injuries. U.S. v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954, 966 (9th Cir. 1999).Thus, the Court is left to determine what calculation is reasonably certain to allow Jane Doe to receive any physical, psychiatric, or psychological care now and in the future. In its discretion and resolving any ambiguity in favor of fairness to the victim, the Court finds that an award of $30,000 is...
To continue reading
Request your trial