United States v. Robert Evans, No. 21-3114 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
A jury convicted Defendant of possessing materials containing child pornography. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 also required the court to order restitution to the victims of Defendant’s child pornography offense. The government moved for an order directing the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to turn over $2,084 from Defendant’s inmate trust account to pay the remaining balance of his restitution obligation. The district court summarily denied Defendant’s motion requesting a hearing and granted the government’s turnover motion. The court concluded that funds in an inmate’s trust account are not exempt from the payment of restitution. Defendant appealed, raising all these issues. The district court stayed the collection or payment of restitution pending the appeal.
The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s Order of September 2, 2021. The court held that the district court must determine on remand whether the victim has been fully compensated for the trafficking losses proximately caused by Defendant’s offense. If she has then amended Section 2259(b)(2)(C) states the governing rule: Defendant’s liability to pay the restitution set forth in his February 2014 Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case “shall be terminated.” The court left for the district court’s determination on remand Defendant’s requests for appointment of counsel and discovery.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Kelly and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant owes restitution to the victim of his pornography offense, and the government filed a turnover motion after defendant received his CARES Act stimulus payment; the district court erred in ordering the turnover of $2,084 without first determining the source of the funds in defendant's inmate trust account and determining whether they were substantial resources - see U.S. v. Kidd, 23 F.4th 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2022); given a prima facie showing that the victim had been fully compensated for the loss proximately caused by defendant's offense, the district court erred in denying him a hearing on the issue of whether the restitution obligation was fully satisfied; on remand the district court must determine whether the victim has been fully compensated for the trafficking losses proximately caused by defendant's offense; if she has, his liability must be terminated.
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.