United States v. Pelton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 19, 2025
• Docket: 23-3242
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3242 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:21-cr-00351-JSW-2 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW LEE PELTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: HAMILTON, R. NELSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.***

Matthew Pelton appeals the order of restitution imposed for his convictions

for conspiracy to produce child pornography and for production of child

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, sitting by designation. pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). The district court had

jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review the order of restitution for abuse of discretion. United States v.

Dadyan, 76 F.4th 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2023). We affirm.

Pelton’s appellate waiver does not block this appeal of the restitution award.

We will not enforce a defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal a restitution order

unless the defendant received “a reasonably accurate estimate of the amount of the

restitution order to which he is exposed.” United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777, 785 (9th

Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2011)). A

plea agreement must include “some precision” regarding the potential amount of

restitution. Tsosie, 639 F.3d at 1219.

Pelton did not receive a reasonably accurate estimate. The plea agreement

only stated that the restitution award would be “determined by the court,” and that

Pelton would be required to pay the “amount to be set by the Court at the time of

sentencing.” Because Pelton did not receive any estimate of the amount of

restitution the court would order, his appellate waiver does not bar this appeal of his

order of restitution.

On the merits, in cases involving child pornography, a court “shall” order

restitution that “reflects the defendant’s relative role” in the “full amount of the

victim’s losses.” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(a), (b)(2)(B). In determining those losses, courts

2 23-3242 may consider, for instance, the costs of psychological care, rehabilitation, lost

income, and “any other relevant losses incurred by the victim.” Id. § 2259(c). The

statute’s “generous terms” give district courts broad discretion to “compensate the

victims of sexual abuse for the care required to address the long term effects of their

abuse.” United States v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954, 966 (9th Cir. 1999). Restitution in

this context looks to “all [the victim’s] child-pornography losses.” Paroline v.

United States, 572 U.S. 434, 459 (2014) (emphasis added).

When awarding restitution to Minor Victim #1 and Minor Victim #2 in this

case, the district court considered reports from mental health professionals who

examined the victims. These evaluations concluded that each victim would require

professional mental health treatment over the course of their lifetimes. The district

court considered the market rates for these sessions, insurance premiums, and the

rates that their therapists charged.

The court also awarded Minor Victim #2 $346,242.76 in productivity and

quality of life losses as “other relevant losses” under § 2259(c)(2)(F). In arriving at

this award, the district court considered (i) reports from medical and mental health

professionals, (ii) scholarship highlighting the long-term economic consequences of

child sex abuse, (iii) other cases where courts awarded similar restitution amounts,

and (iv) statistics on the economic consequences of child abuse from the Centers for

Disease Control.

3 23-3242 The district court had broad discretion to calculate a mandatory restitution

award. In exercising that discretion, it considered expert medical advice, scholarly

literature, and relevant statistics to arrive at its decision. That we may have awarded

a different amount in the first instance does not justify reversal. See United States

v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991, 993 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Given § 2259’s broad language and its reasoned decision, the

district court did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED

4 23-3242