Affirming Broad District Court Discretion in AVAA Restitution Calculations: United States v. Schmitt (2d Cir. 2025)

Introduction

United States v. Schmitt concerns the appeal of Michael Schmitt, who pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). The core of the appeal did not challenge the conviction or the 78-month custodial sentence; rather, Schmitt targeted four components of the restitution order—payments totaling $32,500 owed to victims known by the pseudonyms Violet, Henley, Jane, and Lily.

The District Court for the Western District of New York (Hon. Richard J. Arcara) relied on the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 (“AVAA”) to determine restitution, consulting expert declarations, victim-impact statements, and economic projections. Schmitt claimed the evidentiary basis was outdated and speculative.

In a non-precedential summary order, the Second Circuit nevertheless affirmed the restitution awards in their entirety, reiterating both the breadth of district-court discretion under § 2259 and the deferential “abuse-of-discretion” standard on appellate review.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the amended judgment, upholding all four contested restitution amounts.
• It held that the District Court reasonably estimated each victim’s full losses and properly calibrated Schmitt’s proportional liability under § 2259(b)(2)(B).
• The panel emphasized the Supreme Court’s guidance in Paroline v. United States, which endorses a flexible, fact-sensitive methodology over any rigid mathematical formula.
• Although two arithmetic discrepancies surfaced in aggregate-recovery calculations, the Court concluded—without extended discussion—that they did not affect the final awards.
• Schmitt’s remaining objections were dismissed as lacking merit.

Analysis

1. Precedents and Authorities Cited

• 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (as amended by the AVAA): establishes mandatory restitution in child-pornography cases and sets a $3,000 floor.
• Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014): Supreme Court decision articulating a two-step, causal-nexus test for restitution and granting “wide discretion” to district courts.
• United States v. Aumais, 656 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2011): defines the abuse-of-discretion standard for restitution review.
• United States v. Ryan, 806 F.3d 691 (2d Cir. 2015): clarifies that an amended judgment supersedes the original judgment for appellate purposes.

2. Statutory Framework & Legal Reasoning

Section 2259(b)(2) obliges courts to engage in a two-phase calculus:

1. Determine the full amount of the victim’s losses—past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future (medical, psychological, economic, legal, etc.).
2. Allocate a defendant-specific share reflecting the “relative role” of that defendant in the “causal process,” subject to a statutory minimum of $3,000.

The District Court relied on:

• Psychological evaluations documenting ongoing trauma and projected therapy costs;
• Forensic pediatric reports delineating physical sequelae;
• Economist affidavits computing lost income and inflation-adjusted future treatment expenses;
• Attorney declarations detailing litigation-support outlays.

After calculating each victim’s “full loss” amount (figures well above what they had already recovered from other offenders), the court imposed $5k–$10k in restitution—numbers tied to:

• The quantity of videos Schmitt possessed (1–3 per victim);
• The aggravating fact that each video equals 75 images per U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 n.6(B)(ii);
• His non-participation in production or distribution (a mitigating factor);
• The estimated universe of other offenders previously ordered to pay restitution to each victim (where known).

The Circuit endorsed this reasoning as faithful to Paroline and within “the range of permissible decisions.”

3. Treatment of Evidentiary Objections

Schmitt claimed expert materials were “outdated” or “speculative.” The panel responded implicitly:

• Temporal distance does not automatically negate reliability; projections often cover decades precisely because the harms are long-term.
• Speculation vs. reasonable projection: § 2259 expressly permits forward-looking estimates “reasonably projected to be incurred.” The District Court’s findings satisfied the preponderance standard.

4. Impact on Future Litigation

Although labeled a “summary order” (and therefore non-precedential under Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1), Schmitt still carries persuasive weight:

• Re-affirms that AVAA restitution remains highly discretionary and that appellate courts will rarely disturb district-court calculations absent clear error.
• Signals that relatively modest awards ($5k–$10k) for mere possession of multiple videos comport with § 2259, especially where an offender holds at least one video of each victim.
• Encourages district courts to document the relationship between quantity of contraband and quantum of restitution—an analytical path that may inoculate orders from appeal.
• Clarifies that minor arithmetic inconsistencies in victims’ cumulative-recovery spreadsheets will not necessarily undermine restitution where they do not affect the ultimate bottom line.

Practitioners should therefore marshal robust multidisciplinary evidence for loss estimates and should expect limited success challenging them on appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• AVAA Floor: Congress sets a minimum of $3,000 per victim; courts may go higher but not lower.
• Relative Causation: Instead of making a defendant pay all losses, the court assigns a share matching their role—like slicing a pie based on each guest’s appetite.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: A “more-likely-than-not” standard (just over 50 %)—lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• Summary Order: A streamlined decision without precedential force, yet citable under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1.
• Abuse of Discretion Review: The appeals court asks: “Was the lower court’s ruling reasonable? If any plausible basis exists, we affirm.”

Conclusion

United States v. Schmitt solidifies—albeit in a non-precedential posture—the Second Circuit’s deference to district-court restitution determinations under the AVAA. By endorsing modest yet substantial awards anchored in concrete expert analysis and defendant-specific causation, the Court underscores two overarching themes: (1) the flexibility built into § 2259, and (2) the high bar appellants face when seeking to overturn such awards. Future defendants should recognize that evidentiary quibbles, absent clear legal error or factual misapprehension, are unlikely to sway an appellate panel. For victims and prosecutors, the case serves as persuasive authority supporting methodical, evidence-driven restitution submissions that survive scrutiny.