United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R. GRAND, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST
FOR RESTITUTION 
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9, 2015, Defendant Jonathon William-Durand Neuhard was
indicted and charged with the following: (1) production of
child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); (2) receipt of
child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2); and (3)
possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. §
2252A(a)(5)(B). See Dkt. No. 12. After trial, he was
convicted on all three counts. Dkt. No. 145, p. 1 (Pg. ID
1365). On November 6, 2017, the Court sentenced him to
periods of incarceration. Id. at p. 2 (Pg. ID 1366).
Specifically, he was sentenced to 420 months on the
production count, 240 months on the receipt count, and 120
months on the possession count. Id. All sentences to
run concurrent with each other. Id.
January 19, 2018, the Government filed a brief detailing its
position on restitution. Dkt. No. 155. The Government
submitted a supplemental brief in further support of its
position on March 9, 2018. Dkt. No. 159. Also on March 9,
2018, Neuhard briefed his position on restitution. Dkt. No.
160. Then, on March 15, 2018, the Court heard oral argument
on this issue.
before the Court is the Government's request for
restitution in this matter. Dkt. No. 155. The request is
sufficiently briefed. For the foregoing reasons, the Court
will GRANT the Government's request for restitution.
Accordingly, the eldest of the two victims here (hereinafter
“Minor Victim One” or “MV-1”) is
entitled to $40, 356.00 for therapy and related costs.
Government requests $40, 356.00 in restitution for only Minor
Victim One. This sum is intended to cover the cost of
individual and family therapy (and related transportation
costs) for the next six years, i.e. through the time Minor
Victim One turns eighteen years old. The Court will find that
the Government has proven the amount of Minor Victim
One's loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, the
Court will GRANT the Government's restitution request.
See Dkt. No. 155.
agree MV-1 is entitled to restitution and that she is a
“victim” under the Mandatory Restitution for
Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2259.
disagree on only one issue: whether Neuhard's conviction
offenses proximately caused a need for MV-1 to attend family
therapy sessions, especially considering that therapy may
address supposed conflicts amongst MV-1's family that had
arisen before Neuhard's unlawful conduct. Because the
Court will find the Government has proven proximate cause,
the Court will grant the Government's request for
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2259(a), “provides that a
district court ‘shall order restitution for any
offense' under Chapter 110 of Title 18, which covers a
number of offenses involving the sexual exploitation of
children and child pornography in particular.”
United States v. Paroline, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 1718
(2014). All of Neuhard's conviction offenses fall under
Chapter 110 of Title 18. See Dkt. No. 145, p. 1 (Pg.
instructing district courts on how to set restitution for
such offenses, the Act states “a broad restitutionary
purpose.” Paroline, 134 S.Ct. at 1718.
Specifically, “[i]t requires district courts to order
defendants ‘to pay the victim . . . the full amount of
the victim's losses as determined by the court, '
§ 2259(b)(1), and expressly states that ‘[t]he
issuance of a restitution order under this section is
mandatory, ' § 2259(b)(4)(A).” Id. at
1718-19. In turn, the Act mandates that the Government
show-by a preponderance of the evidence-“the amount of
the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the
offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e).
restitution “is permissible only to the extent the
defendant's offense proximately caused a victim's
losses.” Paroline, 134 S.Ct. at 1722.
“For harms to be ‘proximately' caused by the
criminal conduct, they must be ‘reasonably
foreseeable.' ” United States v. Gamble,