United States v. Fast, No. 12-2752 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pled guilty to one count of receiving and distributing child pornography. The district court ordered him to pay restitution to the victim. The victim challenged the restitution award by direct appeal and in a petition for mandamus. Because the victim lacked standing as a nonparty to bring a direct appeal, the court granted the motions to dismiss by defendant and the government. The court had jurisdiction over her mandamus petition under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)93), but denied her petition because all of her losses were not clearly and indisputably traceable to defendant's crime.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see United States v. Fast, No. 11-3455 (8th Cir. May 15, 2012). Vicky, the pseudonym of a child-pornography victim whose images appeared on defendant Fast's computer, did not have standing as a nonparty to appeal the restitution award imposed by the district court; Vicky could proceed by mandamus; considering her writ petition, the district court did not err in determining that proximate cause is required for each element of restitution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2259 or in requiring defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $3,333; Vicky was not entitled to restitution in the amount of $952,791, her next documented losses to date, as not all of that amount was clearly and indisputably traceable to defendant's crime. Judge Shepherd, concurring in part and dissenting in part. [ March 08, 2013
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.