United States v. Michael Wright , 754 F.3d 296 ( 2014 )

Case: 09-31215 Document: 00512658441 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: 09-31215 Document: 00512658441 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: 09-31215 Document: 00512658441 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