ILNews

Circuit Court upholds $500,000 restitution order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who waived his right in plea negotiations to challenge his sentence or an order of restitution may not appeal the imposition of $533,000 in restitution to a victim depicted in child pornography, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held July 14.

In United States of America v. Nathaniel Josiah Worden, No. 10-3567, Nathaniel Worden, who pleaded guilty to one count of advertising child pornography, challenged that he pay restitution of nearly a half million dollars to victim “Amy.” In exchange for dropping three other charges, Worden pleaded guilty to the advertising charge and agreed to a comprehensive waiver of his appellate rights, including appealing a restitution order.  He was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The government petitioned for the restitution under the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act about five months after Worden pleaded guilty. Worden argued that a psychologist’s testimony regarding Amy’s future treatment was too speculative to support the restitution award and there was no evidence that he had proximately caused Amy’s injury. The court ordered Worden to pay the full amount requested by the government.

The 7th Circuit concluded Worden waived his right to appeal the restitution order. Several times during his plea agreement hearing, he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the restitution order. He believes that he should be able to appeal the amount he was ordered to pay. Several other Circuit courts have concluded that when a defendant waives his right to appeal his “sentence,” an appeal of restitution order falls with the scope of the waiver, wrote Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. Others have concluded that a defendant didn’t waive his right to appeal the amount by entering into an agreement that waives the right to appeal the “sentence” imposed.

But in this case, Worden waived his right to appeal the amount of restitution as well as the order itself. They also held because they didn’t reach the merits in this appeal, the judges don’t need to address the Circuit split arising from other cases involving whether the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act requires a showing of proximate causation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT