United States v. Whitley

354 F. Supp. 3d 930
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois
DecidedJanuary 11, 2019
DocketNo. 16 CR 719
StatusPublished

This text of 354 F. Supp. 3d 930 (United States v. Whitley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Whitley, 354 F. Supp. 3d 930 (illinoised 2019).

Opinion

Virginia M. Kendall, United States District Judge

This Court convicted William Whitley of one count of sex trafficking of children, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), and accordingly sentenced him on September 13, 2018. (Dkt. 90.) The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA) and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) required restitution, 18 U.S.C. § 1593(a), so the Court ordered Whitley to pay $246,286.59 to a trust that will disburse the funds as necessary to the four minor victims. See United States v. Charles , 895 F.3d 560, 565 (8th Cir. 2018) ; In re Sealed Case , 702 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ; (Dkt. 94-95).

Under the VTVPA and MVRA, the defendant must pay for "the full amount of the victim's losses," including medical services, therapy and rehabilitation, transportation, housing, child care, and "any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 1593(3) (citing § 2259(b)(3) ). The government bears the burden of proving the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. See Charles , 895 F.3d at 565 ; United States v. Hosking , 567 F.3d 329, 334 (7th Cir. 2009), abrogated on other grounds by Lagos v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1684, 201 L.Ed.2d 1 (2018) (asserting that it is the government's role to connect the defendant's misconduct to the victim's losses). In this case, the government failed to appropriately analyze restitution and satisfy its statutory responsibility to safeguard the victims' interests.1 See, e.g. , *933United States v. Darbasie , 164 F.Supp.3d 400, 406 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) ).

No matter; it remains this Court's duty to " 'engage in an expedient and reasonable determination of appropriate restitution by resolving uncertainties with a view toward achieving fairness to the victim ...' " United States v. Jones , 747 Fed.Appx. 348, 360, 2018 WL 4053870, at *9 (6th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Huff , 609 F.3d 1240, 1248 (11th Cir. 2010) ); see United States v. Dillard , 891 F.3d 151, 161 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating that Congress charged the district court with these responsibilities because the VTVPA and MVRA entitle the victims to restitution).

From this view, the Court takes the opportunity to clearly explain its finding that the government's position was incomplete and justify the $246,286.59 restitution award. See id. (citing United States v. George , 403 F.3d 470, 473-74 (7th Cir. 2005) ); Hosking , 567 F.3d at 333 (recognizing that district courts must provide explanations of their reasoning for restitution orders and support them with factual findings); Dillard , 891 F.3d at 161 (explaining that if the government's proposed restitution award does not account for things that concern the court, it can adjust the amount and explain its reasons for doing so).

I

Calculating a restitution award is neither an exact science nor a "precise mathematical inquiry." United States v. Hoskins , 876 F.3d 942, 947 (8th Cir. 2017), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2589, 201 L.Ed.2d 305 (2018) (quoting Paroline v. United States , 572 U.S. 434, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 1727-28, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014) ). In practice, courts must use discretion and judgment to analyze the " 'significance of the individual defendant's conduct in light of the broader causal process that produced the victim's losses.' " Id. (quoting Paroline , 134 S.Ct. at 1727-28 ).

That said, this Court has no

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

New York v. Ferber
458 U.S. 747 (Supreme Court, 1982)
United States v. Tommie Huff
609 F.3d 1240 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Julian
242 F.3d 1245 (Tenth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Evers
669 F.3d 645 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Schmidt
675 F.3d 1164 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Paul Frederick Laney
189 F.3d 954 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. David Karl Danser
270 F.3d 451 (Seventh Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Timmy Cliatt
338 F.3d 1089 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Gary R. George
403 F.3d 470 (Seventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Benjamin Robers
698 F.3d 937 (Seventh Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Christopher Laraneta
700 F.3d 983 (Seventh Circuit, 2012)
In Re Sealed Case
702 F.3d 59 (D.C. Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Desnoyers
708 F.3d 378 (Second Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Sanderson
515 F. App'x 16 (Second Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Pearson
570 F.3d 480 (Second Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Hosking
567 F.3d 329 (Seventh Circuit, 2009)
Paroline v. United States
134 S. Ct. 1710 (Supreme Court, 2014)
Robers v. United States
134 S. Ct. 1854 (Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
354 F. Supp. 3d 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-whitley-illinoised-2019.