United States v. Doyle Paroline
This text of United States v. Doyle Paroline (United States v. Doyle Paroline) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 09-41238 Document: 00512658314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
No. 09–41238 FILED June 10, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce In re: AMY UNKNOWN, Clerk
Petitioner
Consolidated with 09–41254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE,
Defendant-Appellee v.
AMY UNKNOWN,
Movant-Appellant
No. 09–31215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee v.
MICHAEL WRIGHT
Defendant-Appellant Case: 09-41238 Document: 00512658314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
No. 09–41238 c/w No. 09–41254 No. 09–31215
Appeals from the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Louisiana
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, GARZA, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, the en banc court affirmed the Eastern District of Louisiana’s judgment in United States v. Wright, No. 09–CR–103 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2009), and vacated the Eastern District of Texas’s judgment in United States v. Paroline, 672 F.Supp.2d 781 (E.D. Tex. 2009). In re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The Supreme Court subsequently vacated our judgment and remanded, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 2259 requires “restitution in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s general losses.” Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 1727 (2014). Likewise, in Wright v. United States, 134 S. Ct 1933 (2014), the Court vacated our judgment in light of Paroline.
* Judge Higginson is recused and did not participate in any aspect of the en banc rehearing. Judge Costa did not participate in the en banc rehearing or in this decision.
2 Case: 09-41238 Document: 00512658314 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
No. 09–41238 c/w No. 09–41254 No. 09–31215 Accordingly, we VACATE the restitution order of the Eastern District of Texas, VACATE the restitution order of the Eastern District of Louisiana, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. 1
1 Michael Wright’s Motion to Remand in No. 09-31215 is denied as moot. 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Doyle Paroline, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-doyle-paroline-ca5-2014.