United States v. Michael Wright

754 F.3d 296, 2014 WL 2597929, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10783

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 10, 2014
• Docket: 09-41238, 09-41254, 09-31215
• Status: Published

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 1727, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014). Likewise, in Wright v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1933, 188 L.Ed.2d 955 (2014), the Court vacated our judgment in light of Paroline.

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.