United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
W. MOLLOY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
October 29, 2018, Defendant Long moved the Court to return to
him payments he made toward a restitution obligation in this
pled guilty to conspiring to advertise child pornography. On
October 21, 2014, he was sentenced to serve 200 months in
prison, to be followed by a life term of supervised release.
He was also required to pay a $100.00 special assessment and
$29, 859.00 in restitution to "Angela," a sum for
which all 13 defendants in the case would be jointly and
severally liable. See Judgment (Doc. Three days later, the
Court issued an order explaining its reasoning for the
restitution award. See Order Nunc Pro Tunc
(Doc. 694) at 15.
did not appeal. His conviction became final on November 4,
2014. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 150
six and half months later, the United States moved for leave
to take funds from Long's inmate trust account. Following
a hearing and briefing, on July 30, 2015, the United States
was permitted to take a 1/13th share of the total restitution
award-that is, $2, 296.85-from Long's account.
See Order (Doc. 787).
November 10, 2015, the United States filed a
"Satisfaction of Monetary Judgment," stating that
the clerk was "authorized and empowered to satisfy and
cancel the judgment of record as to the monetary judgment of
record imposed by this Court." See Satisfaction
of Monetary Judgment (Doc. 795) at 1. A similar document was
filed on the same day as to Defendants Humiston, Woolley,
Purificato, and Krise (see Docs. 791-794). Later,
similar documents were filed as to Defendants Crosby, Morris,
Johnson, Nosek, and Petersen (see Docs. 798, 802,
805, 810, 816).
23, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
restitution order and remanded the matter, requiring this
Court to "disaggregate losses caused by the original
abuser's actions and losses caused by the ongoing
distribution and possession of images of that original
abuse." United States v. Grovo, 826 F.3d 1207,
1221 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v.
Galan, 804 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (9th Cir. 2015)) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
5, 2016, the United States notified the Court that
"Angela" had withdrawn her request for restitution
and stated that "no further restitution will be sought
in the case." Notice (Doc. 809) at 2.
November 16, 2016, the Court directed the clerk to notify the
Bureau of Prisons that the Court of Appeals had "vacated
the portion of the Defendants' judgments providing for
restitution." Order (Doc. 813) at 2.
two years later, on October 29, 2018, Defendant Long moved
the Court to return to him payments he made toward his
Supreme Court holds that a State must repay to a defendant
"fees, court costs, and restitution exacted from the
defendant upon, and as a consequence of," a conviction
that is later invalidated. Nelson v. Colorado,
___U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1249, 1252 (2017). The reason for
this rule, the Court said, is that "[a]bsent conviction
of a crime, one is presumed innocent." Id.; see also
Id. at 1255-56 ("once [the defendants']
convictions were erased, the presumption of their innocence
was restored"), 1256 ("to get their money back,
defendants should not be saddled with any proof burden,"
because "they are entitled to be presumed
innocent"), 1257 ("Colorado has no interest in
withholding from [defendants] money to which the State
currently has zero claim of right").
case is not controlled by Nelson, because Long was
not wrongly convicted. He is not "presumed
innocent." He admitted his guilt, he was found guilty,
and his conviction remains ...