# United States v. Moises Abraham Sotelo

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · March 10, 2025 · 130 F.4th 1229

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10819690

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** March 10, 2025
- **Citations:** 130 F.4th 1229
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** NEW
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10819690

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, in a child-pornography case, that counsel’s sworn declaration setting out the victim’s losses was sufficient evidence to support the restitution award

## Opinion text

USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 1 of 44

[PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12710
____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MOISES ABRAHAM SOTELO,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60016-RAR-1
____________________

____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 2 of 44

2 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

No. 22-10403
____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MOISES ABRAHAM SOTELO,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60016-RAR-1
____________________

Before NEWSOM, LAGOA and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
LAGOA, Circuit Judge:
Moises Abraham Sotelo appeals his sentence of 121 months’
imprisonment following his conviction for one count of receipt of
material involving the sexual exploitation of minors. In a second
appeal, consolidated in this decision, Sotelo appeals the district
court’s order awarding a total of $30,000 in restitution to seven vic-
tims. In his second appeal, we are asked whether the procedure for
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 3 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 3

determining restitution in child pornography cases has changed in
light of recent amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 2259, the statute man-
dating that restitution. After careful review, and with the benefit
of oral argument, we conclude that the procedure has not changed,
and we affirm Sotelo’s sentence and restitution.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Underlying Facts
In January 2021, a federal grand jury indicted Moises Sotelo
for one count of receiving child pornography, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1) (“Count One”), and one count of
possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) (“Count Two”).
The parties stipulated that the following facts would have
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Law enforcement
agents in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Miami Divi-
sion received a request from the FBI Minneapolis Division to locate
and interview an individual in southern Florida who was allegedly
trading images of child pornography on the social media applica-
tion, LiveMe. Moises Sotelo, using the profile name “piper954”,
moderated a group on LiveMe called, “$cashmoney’s FAM.” His
profile page on LiveMe included the statement, “looking for girls
down in fort lauderdale to be naughty with and ill give you some-
thing in return. hit me up if interested. welcome all pics and vids
of hot girls.” As moderator of the group, Sotelo had the ability to
allow other members of the group to post links which he would
authorize and share with the other members.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 4 of 44

4 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

On April 26, 2020, Sotelo responded to an image posted of a
clothed prepubescent minor with a request for more links. On Oc-
tober 22, 2020, law enforcement agents contacted Sotelo, who ad-
mitted that he used the profile “piper954” and consented to a vol-
untary interview at the FBI Miami Field Office. Sotelo further ad-
mitted to using the group on LiveMe to download videos and im-
ages of child pornography. A search of his cell phone revealed that
between March 19, 2018, and October 19, 2020, Sotelo had received
videos of children, some under the age of twelve years, engaged in
sexual activity. According to the Presentence Investigation Report
(“PSI”), 12,061 files were recovered on Sotelo’s device involving
the sexual exploitation of minors, including sadistic and masochis-
tic material.
On May 20, 2021, Sotelo pled guilty to Count One through
a plea agreement. Pursuant to that plea agreement, the United
States agreed to seek dismissal of Count Two of the indictment af-
ter sentencing. The government also agreed to recommend an ac-
ceptance of responsibility reduction to Sotelo’s sentencing guide-
line level applicable to his offense under the U.S. Sentencing Guide-
lines and a seven-year term of imprisonment.
B. Sentencing
Sotelo’s PSI described the offense conduct in more detail but
was consistent with the factual proffer. In particular, the PSI details
the graphic nature of the 10,112 images and 1,949 videos retrieved
from Sotelo’s device. The PSI assigned Sotelo a base offense level
of 22 under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). Because the material found on
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 5 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 5

Sotelo’s device involved a prepubescent minor or minor who had
not attained the age of twelve years, the offense level was increased
by two. Because the offense involved material that portrayed sa-
distic or masochistic conduct or sexual abuse of an infant or tod-
dler, the offense level was then increased by four. And because the
offense involved the use of a computer and involved 600 or more
images, the offense level was increased by two and five respec-
tively. After the additions, Sotelo had an offense level of 35. This
offense level was reduced by three because Sotelo accepted respon-
sibility and the government filed a motion in support stating that
he assisted authorities in the investigation of his own misconduct.
The final offense level was calculated at 32.
The PSI assigned Sotelo one criminal history point for con-
victions on driving under the influence and driving with a sus-
pended license in 2012. Two more points were added because he
committed the instant offense while on probation. Thus, Sotelo
had a criminal history category of II. Based on a criminal history
category of II and a total offense level of 32, the PSI calculated a
guideline sentencing range between 135 to 168 months’ imprison-
ment. There were no objections to the PSI filed by Sotelo or the
government.
On August 2, 2021, the district court conducted Sotelo’s sen-
tencing hearing. The district court first noted that the PSI indicated
a total offense level of 32 and a criminal history category of II,
bringing the advisory guideline range to 135 to 168 months. Then,
both parties stated their views on the appropriate sentence. Sotelo
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 6 of 44

6 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

argued, with the government’s agreement pursuant to the plea
agreement, that 84 months or seven years imprisonment would be
appropriate. The district court noted that the sentence would con-
stitute a fifty-month downward variance and asked “why the Court
should countenance, even by agreement, a variance, given some of
the underlying circumstances of this case.” In particular, the dis-
trict court was concerned that Sotelo “had well over 600 images”—
in fact, 156,287 images—and “many of those images depicted sadis-
tic behavior as towards infants and toddlers.”
The district court explained that Sotelo’s three criminal his-
tory points for the DUI were “the driving force behind entertaining
a variance in this case below the guidelines.” The district court was
clear that it did not believe the offense level was wrong. In fact,
the district court “wholeheartedly agree[d] in this case that 135 to
168 is absolutely appropriate and not an overstatement.” The
court stated:
It is because I think the history category is overstated.
And when I combine that with the joint recommen-
dation, those two factors are going to lead me to en-
tertain a variance. But it will be a variance down to
what he would have scored with a criminal history
category of 1, which is still substantial.
It’s a 14-month variance, and I’m going to ultimately
sentence him to the bottom of that revised guideline,
which would be 121 months. I think, to me, that is
sufficient. It’s a little over the seven-year average, and
I’m told in these cases it is closer to ten.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 7 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 7

He will ultimately be deported. It’s still well below
the guideline provisions, but, to me, the differen[ce]
between seven and ten [years] in a case like this is
driven by the specific facts that I just put on the record
that the Court can not countenance a further vari-
ance, which would really go to the offense level,
given the nature of the images, given that they are in-
fants and toddlers, and given, again that I mentioned
in passing, that he seemed to play a moderating role
in the sharing of that pornography.
The district court thus sentenced Sotelo to a 121-month term of
imprisonment followed by a 15-year term of supervised release.
Sotelo timely appealed his sentence.
C. Restitution
On November 29, 2021, the government filed a memoran-
dum in support of restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Restitu-
tion for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2259. Sec-
tion 2259 mandates a minimum award of $3,000 per victim of child
pornography, so long as that amount does not cause a victim to
recover more than the full amount of their demonstrated losses.
§ 2259(b)(2). The government’s memorandum described how the
FBI submitted the child pornography found on Sotelo’s device to
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(“NCMEC”) 1 to be reviewed for any known victims. NCMEC

1 The NCMEC “is a private, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation whose mission is

to help find missing children, reduce child sexual exploitation, and prevent
child victimization.” About Us, NCMEC,
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 8 of 44

8 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

determined that Sotelo’s device contained 1,712 images of known
child pornography, 245 videos of known child pornography, and a
total of 130 known series of images and videos. Some of the known
series were titled “At School,” “Best Necklace,” “BluesPink,”
“Jenny,” “Sweet Sugar,” “Lighthouse,” and “Pinkheart.” Eight in-
dividual victims, who were depicted in the material found on
Sotelo’s device, submitted restitution requests to the district court.
The victims were identified as “Maureen,” “Pia,” “Violet,” “Maria,”
“Erika,” “Tori,” “Fiona,” and “Jenny.” 2 Each victim filed a claim
under seal, and we discuss each claim in turn.
Maureen
The government recommended $10,000 in restitution for
Maureen. Her claim consisted of a restitution cover letter, psycho-
logical examination, victim impact statements, and an affidavit

https://www.missingkids.org/footer/about (last visited Feb. 26, 2025). The
“NCMEC is statutorily obliged to operate the official national clearinghouse
for information about missing and exploited children, to help law enforcement
locate and recover missing and exploited children, to ‘provide forensic tech-
nical assistance . . . to law enforcement’ to help identify victims of child exploi-
tation, to track and identify patterns of attempted child abductions for law en-
forcement purposes, to ‘provide training . . . to law enforcement agencies in
identifying and locating non-compliant sex offenders,’ and . . . to operate the
CyberTipline as a means of combating Internet child sexual exploitation.”
United States v. Ackerman, 831 F.3d 1292, 1296 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 5773(b)). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2258A, NCMEC is statutorily au-
thorized to receive and review images of child pornography to assist in the
identification of child victims as well as assist in the prosecution of those
crimes.
2 These are pseudonyms to protect the victims’ identities.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 9 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 9

from Maureen’s counsel detailing Maureen’s future and current le-
gal costs. The psychological examination report identified
Maureen as the individual depicted in the “Lighthouse” series.
Maureen’s abuser lived in her childhood home and would
wake her almost every night to engage in sexual behavior from the
time she was a young toddler to age eight. Following the end of
her direct abuse, she was afraid to sleep and stated that her night-
mares of her former abuser were so extreme that she could smell
him in her dreams. When Maureen was in middle school, other
students found out about her past and bullied her until she was
forced to switch schools. And the knowledge of her abuse images
being traded and viewed on the internet has continued the pain.
Maureen said:
You can’t help wondering if people out there are
looking. . . . That is why I don’t go out very much.
And when there are a lot of older men around, I get
clammy and stressed out, and don’t want to be alone.
It is all tied to the downloaders.
When Victim Notification Services first notified Maureen
that possessors of the materials depicting her abuse were being
prosecuted, she did not want to receive the notices. Years later, she
realized that the pursuit of restitution could be done right and she
could “channel something good out of something bad,” particu-
larly to pay for therapy and counseling. She signed up for notifica-
tions and explained her experience:
I went on the website that has the notices, and I
started counting online the number of people there
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 10 of 44

10 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

are, just in my state—and I stopped. It doesn’t say
where in the state that they are. And you don’t know
if the people are released or not. Once the number of
notifications hit 200, I broke down. I knew it was only
going to get higher. It feels permanent that these im-
ages are still being viewed and passed around. It is
always kind of there.
Pia
The government recommended $5,000 in restitution for Pia.
Her claim consisted of a restitution cover letter, a psychological
evaluation, a victim impact statement, employability analysis, and
a declaration of attorney’s fees. The psychological examination re-
port identified Pia as the individual depicted in the “Sweet Sugar”
series.
Pia was abused by her father, who began showing her videos
of sexually abused children when she was four years old to normal-
ize the behavior. For nearly two years, he sexually abused Pia
daily. In the wake of that abuse and with the knowledge of her
images’ circulation on the Internet, Pia is “uncommunicative,
sleepy, sometimes tearful, [and] occasionally paralyzed” and “has
asked to alter her features to change her appearance.” Her mother
fears for her daughter’s safety and wonders “if she is recognized by
other pedophiles when we are out in public.”
Violet
The government recommended $10,000 in restitution for
Violet. Her claim consisted of a restitution cover letter, forensic
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 11 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 11

psychological examination, medical examination, and a declaration
of attorney’s fees. Her claim included a doctor’s note acknowledg-
ing that Violet was the victim of “child sexual abuse with sexual
exploitation from the production of digital abusive images.”
Violet was mostly abused at night, and her abuser set up a
camera and typed messages to others displayed on his computer
monitor in between sex acts. Although Violet is too young to
know about the dissemination of her abuse images, she is at risk of
anxiety, fear, avoidance, distrust, grief, guilt, and hopelessness
upon her eventual discovery.
Maria
The government recommended $5,000 in restitution for
Maria. Her claim consisted of counsel’s declaration in support of
restitution, which explained that they are in the process of compil-
ing her restitution documentation and obtaining a psychological
evaluation. The attorney also stated the treatment costs for other
clients like Maria have been more than $100,000.00. The report
identifies Maria as the victim in the “Best Necklace” series. Maria
was ten years old at the time the videos of her abuse were produced
and is still a minor today.
Erika and Tori
The government recommended $3,000 in restitution for
Erika and Tori each, for a total of $6,000. Their claims consisted of
restitution cover letters, psychological evaluations, victim impact
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 12 of 44

12 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

statements, and declarations of attorney’s fees. Their claims iden-
tified the two as the individuals depicted in the “Pinkheart” series.
Beginning at age five, Erika and Tori were sexually exploited
by a relative to produce child pornography for several years. Dur-
ing their abuse, the perpetrator would take “requests” from online
pedophiles in order to appeal to strangers’ desires. Tori said that
the “pictures out there make it so that I can’t help but remember
the things that I desperately want to erase,” and that “I cannot es-
cape the reality of those pictures, so I feel nothing.” Tori lives an
isolated life, but an expert who examined her stated:
The internet is pervasive and necessary in order to
gain access to almost everything: jobs, education, and
social connections. If Tori is able to break out of her
extremely isolated and limiting shell, she is bound to
confront the disturbing realization that her childhood
sexual abuse is no longer her own hidden secret, but
a very public reality. This additional stress will most
likely cause Tori further distress, despair, fear, and de-
pression. One step forward will likely mean not just
two, but three or four steps backwards for this other-
wise fragile and struggling young woman.
Fiona
The government recommended $3,000 in restitution for
Fiona. Her claim consisted of a restitution cover letter, psycholog-
ical evaluation, victim impact statement, and a declaration of attor-
ney’s fees. The attorney’s cover letter described Fiona as the victim
in the “BluesPink” series, and the psychological assessment
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 13 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 13

recognized that Fiona was “drugged, sexually abused, and had the
images of that abuse posted on the internet.” Fiona’s abuse series
is one of the most widely trafficked sets of child sex abuse images
in the world.
Dr. Faller, one of the experts cited in the restitution claim,
explained how child pornography possession harms victims for life:
Unfortunately being a victim of child pornography is
likely to have a negative effect on victims throughout
the lifespan, not just on their ability to form positive
personal relationships.
First, as victims gain a more sophisticated under-
standing of the violation of the taboo represented by
the sexual abuse and the child pornography, they face
renewed challenges in coping. Fiona, at this time,
seems to have little comprehension of what her father
did and the impact of the availability of the images of
herself being sexually abused and exploited not just
by her father but by a stranger. This comprehension
will change as she grows older and likely will cause
her significant ongoing trauma. . . .
Second, victims of sexual abuse and child pornogra-
phy essentially have fewer psychological resources for
dealing with other adversities in life, such as the death
of a caretaker, a car accident, loss of employment, or
a divorce. Sexual abuse and being a victim of child
pornography also literally compromises the immune
system. . . .
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 14 of 44

14 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

Third, sexual abuse and being a victim of child por-
nography generates special problems as victims reach
developmental milestones related to sexuality, inti-
macy, and close personal relationships. Typical mile-
stones that create crises for victims are puberty, dating
relationships, sexual encounters, marriage, decisions
to have children, and when the victim’s child or chil-
dren reach the age when he or she was victimized.
Jenny
The government recommended $3,000 in restitution for
Jenny. Her claim consisted of a restitution cover letter, victim im-
pact statement, psychological report, and a letter calculating the
value of losses. Jenny’s attorney stated that Jenny was the victim
in the “Jenny” series.
Jenny’s child abuse materials are some of the most widely
trafficked in the world and are notorious for their graphic, sado-
masochistic depictions, some involving animals. She was seven
years old when her abuse began. Jenny was abused for two years
before law enforcement found her on the internet and arrested her
abuser. Now, she lives in fear of men and boys. She is always con-
scious of her clothing and ensures no one can see any parts of her.
As to the dissemination of her graphic abuse, Jenny stated:
I worry about the pictures of me that are out there
and I hate that others see them. I have feared over the
years that someone would recognize me in public. I
wish only that every single one can be found and de-
stroyed someday.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 15 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 15

****
Altogether, the victims’ restitution claims paint a vivid, pain-
ful picture of the harms caused by child sexual abuse and the pos-
session of images depicting that abuse. While lives can be im-
proved, the ongoing harm, inflicted by the illegal possession of
these images, is seemingly impossible to end.
On January 4, 2022, the district court held a hearing on res-
titution. Sotelo objected to the government’s determinations on
restitution and argued that the district court was required to make
a finding about the total approximate number of viewings of a vic-
tim’s image in order to determine the defendant’s relative role. Be-
cause the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act (AVAA) amended § 2259,
Sotelo urged the district court to depart from the multifactor anal-
ysis for child pornography restitution outlined in Paroline v. United
States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014). The district court rejected this view,
stating that the Paroline factors are still “good law” and would apply
in this case.
Sotelo also argued that there had been “no identification” of
the victims being in the series and such verification was absent
from the record, which was necessary to establish restitution. Ac-
cordingly, the district court requested that the government file for
the record the NCMEC report alluded to in the restitution request.
The government agreed to do so, and explained how the NCMEC
report verified the victims in the images and videos on Sotelo’s de-
vice:
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 16 of 44

16 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

Repeatedly in case law and actually every case I read
and every Supreme Court case, that is the burden the
United States has put forward. It has been the
[NCMEC] because those instances come from hash
values. 3 That’s how those images and videos––are
identified. They’re identified through hash values,
and the [NCMEC] maintains those hash values. And
from those hash values, they know that these partic-
ular series are the ones that are identified. And then
those series are submitted to the––to the victims, the
victims’ attorneys, and they specify which victims we
have in each series, and we know the restitution
amounts they’re requesting.
The government also stated that Sotelo’s original attorney
came to the FBI office and looked at the images individually. Fol-
lowing the restitution hearing, the government filed the NCMEC
report as requested, as well as a corresponding spreadsheet created
by law enforcement. Sotelo opposed reliance on those documents,

3 A hash value is a sort of digital fingerprint. “Many companies rely on hash-
value matching to remove child pornography from their email, file sharing,
and similar internet services. A hash value is a number that is often repre-
sented as a sequence of characters and is produced by an algorithm based upon
the digital contents of a drive, medium, or file. . . . Some algorithms assign a
character to every pixel in an image, such that the hash value will change if a
single pixel changes. After companies assign a hash value to a known image
of child pornography, they can scan their services for files with the same value.
When they get a match, they know that the scanned file is a duplicate of the
child-pornography image without opening and viewing the file.” United States
v. Miller, 982 F.3d 412, 418-19 (6th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted and internal
quotations omitted).
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 17 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 17

arguing that the person who prepared them was not identified, nor
was there an explanation about how the information was obtained.
The NCMEC “compares images and identifies the children
depicted within [child pornography]” and “then notifies an identi-
fied victim every time someone is arrested who is found to possess
his or her image.” United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204, 1206
(11th Cir. 2011). Such a system responds to the reality of child por-
nography today. The internet provides offenders like Sotelo with
unprecedented access to the possession and trade of child sexual
abuse images and videos, often anonymously. It also allows indi-
viduals to connect with other offenders to facilitate the sharing of
preexisting child sexual abuse material and to create incentives for
the further production of new material. In this landscape, law en-
forcement faces a unique problem. The public must be prevented
from possessing child pornography, but the material itself is often
necessary to identify victims, who are sometimes in immediate
danger. Thus, the NCMEC is statutorily mandated to serve as a
national clearinghouse for child pornography reports and content
in order to both prevent the further dissemination of illicit materi-
als and to aid law enforcement in identifying victims for restitution
and, often, rescue. See 18 U.S.C. § 2258A and 34 U.S.C.A. § 11293.
As of July 2017, the NCMEC had received more than 21.7 million
reports of child sexual exploitation and had assisted law enforce-
ment in identifying more than 13,200 child victims.
Here, the NCMEC report identifies Sotelo’s name, email ad-
dresses, and online screen name. It also contains the name of the
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 18 of 44

18 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

FBI agent who requested the report and the date it was requested.
And it states that “[t]he following Child Identification Report lists
the specific file name(s), the corresponding series name and the law
enforcement point of contact who is providing age verification for
the children.” The report identified 130 child pornography series,
inclusive of the seven series listed in the restitution claims. The
attached spreadsheet lists the victims, the series in which their
abuse was depicted, and the timestamps for their downloads onto
Sotelo’s device. The spreadsheet does not list its author nor the
time of its creation.
On February 4, 2022, the district court entered the order on
restitution. Before analyzing the issues directly, the district court
outlined the AVAA and the burden of proof, noting that the gov-
ernment bears the burden of proving restitution by a preponder-
ance of the evidence and that the evidence must bear sufficient in-
dicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy. As to the
NCMEC report and attached spreadsheet, the district court relied
on our decision in United States v. Hairston for the proposition that
a court may consider hearsay evidence in determining an award of
restitution so long as the defendant has an opportunity to refute
the evidence and it bears “minimal indicia of reliability.” 888 F.2d
1349, 1353 (11th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 765
F.2d 1546, 1555 (11th Cir. 1985)). And the district court listed the
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 19 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 19

Paroline4 factors, recognizing that they are “rough guideposts” and
should not be treated as a “rigid formula.”
The district court then addressed Sotelo’s overarching ob-
jections to restitution. To start, the district court overruled
Sotelo’s objection to the use of the NCMEC report and spread-
sheet. The district court was satisfied that the evidence had suffi-
cient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy because
it was compiled by law enforcement and an organization, the
NCMEC, tasked with maintaining the database. The district court
also noted that the evidence connects the images from Sotelo’s
computer, which were inspected by Sotelo’s prior counsel, to the
child victims identified by the NCMEC, and allowed the district
court to ascertain when materials were accessed by Sotelo.
The district court also found that restitution was mandatory
for each victim, as the government provided sufficient evidence
“by way of the [NCMEC report] and [s]preadsheet, to identify each
child victim found in the photo and video files on [Sotelo’s] com-
puter.” The district court then turned to address the individual
awards of restitution for each victim.
First, as to Maureen, based on the forensic psychological ex-
amination, witness impact statement, and affidavit detailing attor-
ney’s costs, the district court found that Maureen’s total losses
were between $185,528.18 and $205,128.18. Although Sotelo ar-
gued that § 2259 foreclosed any additional restitution because

4 See Paroline, 572 U.S. at 458–61.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 20 of 44

20 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

Maureen has already received enough in prior awards to cover the
cost of her therapy, the district court disagreed, noting that § 2259
covers more than costs related to therapy. Because she has not re-
covered those costs, the court determined that she can still receive
restitution. Turning to the Paroline factors, the district court noted
the number of images (four images and one video) possessed by
Sotelo, the amount of restitution previously collected ($187,528),
and the fact that Sotelo did not produce the images. The district
court then found that $3,000 was appropriate restitution for
Maureen.
Next, as to Pia, based on the forensic psychological exami-
nation, witness impact statement, employability analysis, and affi-
davit detailing attorney’s costs, the district court determined that
Pia’s total losses were between $1,073,919.44 and $1,710,919.44.
The district court agreed with the government that lost income
should include lost future earnings. Turning to the Paroline factors,
the district court noted the number of images possessed by Sotelo
(five images and eleven videos), the amount previously collected
($423,827.30), and the fact that Sotelo did not produce the images.
The district court then found that $5,000 was appropriate restitu-
tion for Pia.
As to Violet, based on the forensic psychological examina-
tion, multiple studies addressing the psychological profiles of adult
survivors of child exploitation, a letter from a doctor providing an
estimated cost for medical treatments, other cases in which district
courts have awarded victims like Violet restitution, and a
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 21 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 21

declaration detailing attorney’s fees, the district court found that
Violet’s total losses were between $767,616.50 and $813,241.50.
The district court noted that at minimum, Violet has incurred
$47,409.50 in attorney’s costs. The district court also noted that
projected therapy and medical costs can be considered in calculat-
ing a victim’s total loss. Because of the studies on the effects of
child pornography abuse on victims in adulthood, the district court
determined that the government showed, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that it is more likely than not that Violet will need
the projected therapy and medical treatments laid out by her doc-
tors. Turning to the Paroline factors, the district court noted the
number of images possessed by Sotelo (eighteen images and twelve
videos), the amount previously collected ($226,228), and the fact
that Sotelo did not produce the images. The district court also
noted that Sotelo’s causal role was greater with Violet than
Maureen and Pia because of the higher number of images and vid-
eos on his device. Therefore, the district court found that $10,000
was appropriate restitution for Violet.
As to Maria, the district court first addressed whether a vic-
tim who does not know that her images are being trafficked can be
awarded restitution under § 2259. The district court noted that
therapy costs are not the only type of loss for which a victim may
be compensated, citing attorney’s fees. The district court also
stated that Maria is undoubtedly a victim and the fact that she is
unaware of her abuse’s circulation does not preclude a finding of a
reasonable expectation of the cost of future therapy. The district
court reasoned that precluding Maria from receiving restitution
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 22 of 44

22 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

would “be inapposite to Congress’ clear goal of providing victims
of sexual abuse with substantial relief.” Based on the victim’s coun-
sel’s declaration in support of restitution, the district court found
that Maria’s total losses are $125,000. Turning to the Paroline fac-
tors, the district court noted the number of images possessed by
Sotelo (three images and two videos), the amount previously col-
lected ($0), the number of cases currently being prosecuted (hun-
dreds), the percentage of total loss this restitution award would
represent, and the fact that Sotelo did not produce the images.
Thus, the district court found that $3,000 was appropriate restitu-
tion for Maria.
As to Tori, based on the letter detailing restitution from
Tori’s counsel, the approximate cost of the forensic examination
needed in the case, and a report of the psychological consultation
for Tori, the district court found that Tori’s total losses are $20,500.
The district court also noted that the losses are “almost certainly
understated, as counsel for Tori is still in the process of obtaining
the necessary documentation detailing her client’s losses.” Turn-
ing to the Paroline factors, the district court noted the number of
images possessed by the defendant (two images), the amount pre-
viously collected ($18,078), and the fact that Sotelo did not produce
the images. Finally, the district court found that $3,000 was appro-
priate restitution for Tori. 5

5 The government conceded that Erika was not pictured with Tori in the ma-

terials and that it no longer sought restitution for Erika.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 23 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 23

As to Fiona, based on the letter detailing a restitution re-
quest, a victim impact statement from Fiona’s mother, a report of
psychological consultation, and a letter calculating certain losses
for Fiona by an economics group, the district court determined that
Fiona’s total losses are at least $2,558,635. The district court de-
clined to “opine on whether loss of enjoyment of life can be con-
sidered” because other metrics trigger the award for restitution.
Turning to the Paroline factors, the district court considered the
number of images Sotelo possessed (three images), the amount of
prior restitution ($24,000), and the fact that Sotelo did not produce
the images. Finally, the district court determined that $3,000 was
appropriate restitution for Fiona.
Finally, as to Jenny, based on the letter detailing restitution
from Jenny’s counsel, a victim impact statement, a psychological
assessment, and a letter calculating the value of certain losses by an
economics group, the district court determined that Jenny’s total
losses are between $1,753,972 and $3,002,606. Turning to the Pa-
roline factors, the district court noted the number of images Sotelo
possessed (six images), the amount of prior restitution ($113,862),
and the fact that Sotelo did not produce the images. Finally, the
district court determined that $3,000 was appropriate restitution
for Jenny.6

6 The district court’s order, by scrivener’s error, listed the restitution for Jenny

as “$3,0000,” not “$3,000” as described in the body of the order and requested
by the government.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 24 of 44

24 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

Sotelo timely appealed the order of restitution.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence un-
der the abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Livesay, 587
F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009). “A district court abuses its discre-
tion when it (1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that
were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an im-
proper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment
in considering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d
1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting United States v.
Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc)). In deciding
on a sentence, the district court must evaluate all the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, but the weight given to each factor is within the
sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Ramirez-Gon-
zalez, 755 F.3d 1267, 1272 (11th Cir. 2014). The party challenging
the sentence bears the burden of establishing that it is unreasonable
based on the facts of the case and the § 3553(a) factors. United States
v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018).
“We review de novo the legality of a restitution order, but
review for clear error the factual findings underlying that order.”
Rothenberg v. United States, 923 F.3d 1309, 1327 (11th Cir. 2019). We
review the amount of the district court’s restitution award only for
an abuse of discretion. Id.; see also Paroline, 572 U.S. at 459 (empha-
sizing that “determining the proper amount of restitution” in-
volves “the use of discretion and sound judgment” by the district
court). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies the
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 25 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 25

incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures, or makes
clearly erroneous findings of fact. United States v. Jordan, 582 F.3d
1239, 1249 (11th Cir. 2009).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Sentencing
As to his sentence, Sotelo argues that the district court
abused its discretion by failing to properly consider and balance cer-
tain factors, including (1) his cooperation with authorities; (2) his
deportation following his sentence; and (3) the government’s com-
ment that seven years was “usually” the sentence imposed in these
cases.
Section 3553(a) provides that the district court “shall impose
a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to accom-
plish multiple goals, including to reflect the seriousness of the of-
fense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment
for the offense; afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(C). The court also must consider, among
other things, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant; the kinds of sentences
available; the guideline sentencing range; the need to avoid unwar-
ranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar rec-
ords who have been convicted of similar conduct; and the need to
provide restitution to any victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
Because we are reviewing for an abuse of discretion, we will
not substitute our own judgment for that of the sentencing court
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 26 of 44

26 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

and will sometimes affirm the district court even if we would have
sentenced the defendant differently in the first instance. The ques-
tion is whether the district court’s decision was “‘in the ballpark’ of
permissible outcomes.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d
1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Ledford v. Peeples, 605 F.3d 871,
922 (11th Cir. 2010)). And when considering a claim of unwar-
ranted sentencing disparity, we consider whether the defendant is
similarly situated to the defendants to whom he compares himself.
United States v. Duperval, 777 F.3d 1324, 1338 (11th Cir. 2015).
While we do not formally presume that a within-guidelines-range
sentence is reasonable, “we ordinarily expect it to be.” United States
v. Castaneda, 997 F.3d 1318, 1332 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court’s
imposition of a sentence well below the statutory maximum pen-
alty is another indicator of reasonableness. Id.
Sotelo has not met the burden to show his sentence is sub-
stantively unreasonable. As an initial matter, his 121-month sen-
tence is already below the applicable advisory guideline of 135 to
168 months and substantially below the statutory maximum sen-
tence of 240 months. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b). The record reflects that
the district court considered Sotelo’s deportation, Sotelo’s cooper-
ation, and the arguments around unwarranted sentencing dispari-
ties. Despite these arguments, the district court determined that
several factors weighed against a significant downward variance,
including the number of images possessed, the fact that the images
involved infants and toddlers and sadistic/masochistic behavior,
and the fact that Sotelo played a moderator role. The govern-
ment’s statement that seven years is the usual sentence in these
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 27 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 27

cases does not make the sentence unreasonable. Neither the gov-
ernment nor Sotelo provided any further explanation or details
about other “usual” cases, i.e., whether they involved toddlers,
whether they involved defendants who played a moderator role,
or whether they involved defendants who possessed a large num-
ber of images. All of Sotelo’s other arguments amount to a claim
that the district court did not give proper weight to various factors
in sentencing Sotelo. The district court, however, weighed the fac-
tors and, in its broad discretion, came to a different conclusion,
choosing a 14-month variance downward rather than Sotelo’s re-
quest for a greater variance. The final 121-month sentence fell sig-
nificantly below the statutory maximum of 240 months and below
the PSI’s guideline range for the case, further indicating the sen-
tence’s reasonableness. Thus, the sentence falls well within “the
ballpark of permissible outcomes.” Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1257
(quoting Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189.)
Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
considerable discretion in rejecting the parties’ joint sentence rec-
ommendation and sentencing Sotelo to 121 months’ imprison-
ment, we affirm Sotelo’s sentence.
B. Restitution
As to restitution, Sotelo makes four arguments on appeal.
First, Sotelo argues that the district court erred in relying on the
NCMEC report and spreadsheet because there was no basis for
finding that Sotelo possessed images of the listed victims and be-
cause the “minimal indicia of reliability” standard is incorrect post-
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 28 of 44

28 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

AVAA. Second, he claims that the district court erred in failing to
present evidence on the total number of persons who had viewed
each of the individual victim’s images and making the requisite
finding as to Sotelo’s relative causal role. Third, he argues that the
district court erred in awarding restitution where Violet, Maria,
Tori, and Fiona have not been told their images are on the internet.
Fourth, he argues that individual restitution amounts are not sup-
ported by the record for each individual victim. Before addressing
these arguments, it is necessary to discuss the statutory scheme
governing this kind of restitution.
“In a sense, every viewing of child pornography is a repeti-
tion of the victim’s abuse.” Paroline, 572 U.S. at 457. The collective
conduct of every individual who possesses the depictions of a
child’s sexual abuse plays a role in continuing that original violation
for the entire life of the victim. Recognizing this, Congress has
mandated restitution in child pornography possession cases. See 18
U.S.C. § 2259. In Paroline, the Supreme Court adopted a causation-
in-fact standard for § 2259 cases given that “[t]he cause of the vic-
tim’s general losses is the trade in her images” and that “it is impos-
sible to trace a particular amount of those losses to the individual
defendant by recourse to a more traditional causal inquiry.” 572
U.S. at 449, 456–58. Such a system achieves two goals. It both helps
victims achieve eventual restitution on the often long, painful, and
expensive road to recovering from their abuse and conveys to of-
fenders “the fact that child-pornography crimes, even simple pos-
session, affects real victims.” Id. at 459.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 29 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 29

As to how district courts should determine the amount of
restitution, the Supreme Court stated that a court “must assess as
best it can from available evidence the significance of the individual
defendant’s conduct in light of the broader causal process that pro-
duced the victim’s losses.” Id. While recognizing that the inquiry
“cannot be a precise mathematical inquiry,” the Paroline Court out-
lined factors that courts “might consider in determining a proper
amount of restitution,” stressing that “it is neither necessary nor
appropriate to prescribe a precise algorithm for determining the
proper restitution at this point in the law’s development.” Id. at
459–60. These factors include: (1) the number of past criminal de-
fendants found to have contributed to the victim’s general losses;
(2) reasonable predictions of the number of future offenders likely
to be caught and convicted for crimes contributing to the victim’s
general losses; (3) any available and reasonably reliable estimate of
the broader number of offenders involved; (4) whether the defend-
ant reproduced or distributed images of the victim; (5) whether the
defendant had any connection to the initial production of the im-
ages; (6) how many images of the victim the defendant possessed;
and (7) other facts relevant to the defendant’s relative causal role.
Id. at 460. The Supreme Court cautioned that these factors are not
a “rigid formula” but rather “guideposts” to aid the district court in
determining restitution. Id.
The AVAA, effective December 7, 2018, amended § 2259.
See Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-299, 132 Stat. 4383 (2018). The amend-
ment provided the framework for determining restitution in child
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 30 of 44

30 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

pornography possession cases and set a minimum amount of
$3,000 for restitution. Id. The amended § 2259 reads, in relevant
part:
(a) In general.—Notwithstanding [18 U.S.C.] section
3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any other civil or
criminal penalty authorized by law, the court shall or-
der restitution for any offense under this chapter.
(b) Scope and nature of order.—
(1) Directions.—Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the order of restitution under this section shall
direct the defendant to pay the victim (through
the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount
of the victim’s losses.
(2) Restitution for trafficking in child pornogra-
phy.—If the defendant was convicted of traffick-
ing in child pornography, the court shall order res-
titution under this section in an amount to be de-
termined by the court as follows:
(A) Determining the full amount of a vic-
tim’s losses.—The court shall determine the
full amount of the victim’s losses that were in-
curred or are reasonably projected to be in-
curred by the victim as a result of the traffick-
ing in child pornography depicting the victim.
(B) Determining a restitution amount.—Af-
ter completing the determination required un-
der subparagraph (A), the court shall order res-
titution in an amount that reflects the
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 31 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 31

defendant’s relative role in the causal process
that underlies the victim’s losses, but which is
no less than $3,000.
(C) Termination of payment.—A victim’s to-
tal aggregate recovery pursuant to this section
shall not exceed the full amount of the victim’s
demonstrated losses. After the victim has re-
ceived restitution in the full amount of the vic-
tim’s losses as measured by the greatest
amount of such losses found in any case involv-
ing that victim that has resulted in a final resti-
tution order under this section, the liability of
each defendant who is or has been ordered to
pay restitution for such losses to that victim
shall be terminated. The court may require the
victim to provide information concerning the
amount of restitution the victim has been paid
in other cases for the same losses.
...
(c) Definitions.—
...
(2) Full amount of the victim’s losses.—For pur-
poses of this subsection, the term “full amount of
the victim’s losses” include any costs incurred, or
that are reasonably projected to be incurred in the
future, by the victim, as a proximate result of the
offenses involving the victim, and in the case of
trafficking in child pornography offenses, as a
proximate result of all trafficking in child
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 32 of 44

32 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

pornography offenses involving the same victim,
including—
(A) medical service relating to physical, psychi-
atric, or psychological care;
(B) physical and occupational therapy or reha-
bilitation;
(C) necessary transportation, temporary hous-
ing, and child care expenses;
(D) lost income;
(E) reasonable attorneys’ fees, as well as other
costs incurred; and
(F) any other relevant losses incurred by the
victim.
18 U.S.C. § 2259.
Thus, under § 2259, “[a] victim’s total aggregate recov-
ery . . . shall not exceed the full amount of the victim’s demon-
strated losses.” § 2259(b)(2)(C). Accordingly, “[a]fter the victim
has received restitution in the full amount of the victim’s losses as
measured by the greatest amount of such losses found in any case
involving that victim that has resulted in a final restitution order
. . . , the liability of each defendant who is or has been ordered to
pay restitution for such losses to that victim shall be terminated.”
Id.
Prior to the AVAA amendments, § 2259 did not prescribe a
minimum amount for restitution. In setting the minimum
amount, Congress commented that “[i]t is the intent of Congress
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 33 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 33

that victims of child pornography be compensated for the harms
resulting from every perpetrator who contributes to their an-
guish.” AVAA, § 2, 132 Stat. at 4383. “Such an aggregate causation
standard reflects the nature of child pornography and the unique
ways that it actually harms victims.” Id. Understanding the com-
plexity of providing meaningful restitution to victims of a never-
ending crime, we turn to Sotelo’s arguments.
1. NCMEC Report and Spreadsheet
On appeal, Sotelo argues that the district court erred in rely-
ing on the NCMEC report and spreadsheet. He contends that there
was no basis for finding that Sotelo possessed the images and that
the NCMEC report and spreadsheet lack the “minimal indicia of
reliability” necessary to establish restitution. Particularly, Sotelo
takes issue with the fact that the government did not disclose how
the information in the spreadsheet was obtained nor who prepared
the spreadsheet.
We conclude that the NCMEC report and spreadsheet bear
the minimal indicia sufficient to establish reliability. Thus, the dis-
trict court did not err in relying on those materials to establish and
calculate restitution. In considering restitution, courts may con-
sider hearsay evidence like the NCMEC report and spreadsheet so
long as the defendant has an opportunity to refute the evidence and
it bears the “minimal indicia of reliability.” Hairston, 888 F.2d at
1353 (quoting Rodriguez, 765 F.2d at 1555). As an initial matter, we
do not view the report and spreadsheet in a vacuum. Indeed, the
names of the series and victims are consistent throughout the
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 34 of 44

34 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

record, including the report, spreadsheet, and the restitution
claims. Further, the NCMEC report and spreadsheet’s reliability is
corroborated by more than 800 pages of documentation submitted
by attorneys, doctors, economists, and psychologists with connec-
tions to the actual victims.
It is also notable that the report comes from the NCMEC,
the only organization in the country dedicated to the notification
and identification of child pornography victims. In the report, the
NCMEC explains that the files submitted by the FBI Special Agent
assigned to the case “were compared with NCMEC’s Child Recog-
nition & Identification System,” that “[t]here were files that appear
to contain child victims who have been identified by law enforce-
ment,” and that the report “will list the specific file names, the cor-
responding series name and the law enforcement point of contact
who is providing age verification for the children.” The govern-
ment also outlined to the district court how the NCMEC retains
hash values 7 on series and connects those values to individual vic-
tims. Finally, supporting the district court’s finding that the report
and spreadsheet were sufficiently reliable to establish restitution is
the overarching fact that Sotelo pled guilty to possessing child por-
nography and acknowledged being the moderator of a group ded-
icated to trading images and videos of children being sexually
abused, all in a timeframe that largely matches that in the spread-
sheet.

7 See footnote 3 supra.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 35 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 35

These facts show that the NCMEC report and spreadsheet
bear the minimal indicia of reliability, and thus we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on them.
While it may have been better evidentiary practice for the govern-
ment to obtain a signed declaration by someone at the NCMEC, or
for the spreadsheet to include the name of the author or the time
of creation, we will not conclude that this copious record was in-
sufficient to establish restitution. In passing § 2259, “Congress was
attempting to compensate the victims of child pornography, not to
intensify the harm they have already suffered as a condition of ob-
taining restitution.” United States v. Kearney, 672 F.3d 81, 99 (1st Cir.
2012). The evidence in this case sufficiently connected Sotelo’s
conduct to the individual victims’ harms and, as Congress in-
tended, did not overly burden victims with reminders of their
abuse.
Sotelo also argues that the district erred in using the “mini-
mal indicia of reliability” standard established in Hairston, 888 F.2d
at 1353. Because the AVAA mandated a minimum restitution
amount, Sotelo contends that the $3,000 minimum operates less as
restitution and more as a fine or penalty, subject to a higher stand-
ard of proof pursuant to the rule from Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013).
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 36 of 44

36 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

Because Sotelo made this argument for the first time on ap-
peal, we review this issue only for plain error. 8 United States v.
Bobal, 981 F.3d 971, 975 (11th Cir. 2020). “[W]here the explicit lan-
guage of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue,
there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the
Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it.” United States v.
Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003). Neither the text
of § 2259 nor any Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit cases specifi-
cally address whether the AVAA’s mandatory $3,000 is subject to
Apprendi. Indeed, lacking any such precedent on which to rely,
Sotelo argues in his brief against our previous decisions that suggest
that Apprendi might not apply to the new mandatory restitution
amount. See Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th
Cir. 2006). Thus, the district court did not plainly err by applying
the “minimal indicia of reliability” standard. 9 Because the district
court did not plainly err, we need not reach the merits of the Ap-
prendi question here.

8 Indeed, Sotelo never cited Apprendi nor Alleyne in the restitution hearing or

briefings and never argued that the restitution process violated his Fifth and
Sixth Amendment rights to have restitution submitted to a jury.
9 Sotelo also raises for the first time on appeal an Eighth Amendment argu-

ment that the prohibition of excessive fines precludes restitution of this size.
For similar reasons, we find no plain error as to this issue. See Bobal, 981 F.3d
at 975; Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d at 1291. And, in any event, a $3,000 minimum
amount for restitution is not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of pos-
sessing child pornography. Cf. United States v. Sperrazza, 804 F.3d 1113, 1127
(11th Cir. 2015).
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 37 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 37

2. Restitution Award
As to the actual award of restitution, Sotelo first argues that
the district court erred by failing to determine how many people
viewed each image. Because the AVAA instructs district courts to
determine the defendant’s “relative role” in causing a victim’s
losses, Sotelo urges us to require the government to present evi-
dence of the total number of viewers of a victim’s images.
The text of the AVAA amended statute requires a court to
order restitution that “reflects the defendant’s relative role in the
causal process that underlies the victim’s losses.” § 2259(b)(2)(B).
Presenting evidence on the total number of viewers of a victim’s
images is neither a necessary finding to determine a defendant’s
relative role nor always possible given the sprawling nature of child
pornography on the internet and the indeterminable number of po-
tential viewers in the future. The statutory language corresponds
with the Paroline instructions for considering factors that can help
determine, by no “rigid formula,” the “defendant’s relative causal
role” in the victim’s losses. Paroline, 572 U.S. at 460. As the Su-
preme Court stated, this inquiry “cannot be a precise mathematical
inquiry and involves the use of discretion and sound judgment.”
Id. at 459. The AVAA did not direct courts to depart from the es-
tablished method of inquiry into a defendant’s “relative role.” In-
deed, that inquiry itself is now mandated by statute. Far from dis-
placing Paroline, the AVAA recognized the approach outlined in Pa-
roline as the proper one in § 2259 cases, and Congress explicitly
mentioned Paroline in its findings. AVAA, § 2, 132 Stat. at 4383.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 38 of 44

38 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in not addressing
each “rough guidepost” outlined in Paroline.
Next, Sotelo objects to the district court’s award to Violet,
Maria, Tori, and Fiona on the grounds that they have not yet been
told that their abuse images are on the internet. Again, he is mis-
taken. Awareness of one’s images being circulated on the internet
is not a prerequisite for restitution, nor has Sotelo pointed to any
case or authority suggesting otherwise. The language of § 2259
states that projected therapy and medical costs can be considered
in calculating a victim’s total losses. § 2259(b)(2)(A) (“The court
shall determine the full amount of the victim’s losses that were in-
curred or are reasonably projected to be incurred by the victim.” (em-
phasis added)). And we have previously held that restitution for
future expenses, such as future therapy and counseling, is allowed
as long as the award reflects a reasonable estimate of those costs
and is based on record evidence. See United States v. Osman, 853
F.3d 1184, 1189–90 (11th Cir. 2017). Moreover, the costs included
in a victim’s losses cover more than therapy, including medical ser-
vices, transportation, temporary housing, lost income, and attor-
ney’s fees. 18 U.S.C. § 2259(c)(2). So even if a victim might forgo
therapy, as Sotelo suggests, that by no means forecloses the reason-
able projection of other costs. Indeed, the record overwhelmingly
suggests that the widespread circulation of one’s abuse images will
cause harms to the victims throughout their lives. If the record
supports a reasonable estimate of future costs to victims of child
pornography who are currently unaware of the trafficked images,
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 39 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 39

no language in § 2259 nor case law prevents a district court from
ordering restitution.
Finally, Sotelo attacks the restitution amounts, arguing that
they were not supported by the record. When reviewing posses-
sion of child pornography restitution awards, we “give due defer-
ence to the district court’s determination that the Paroline factors,
on the whole, justify the restitution amount awarded and should
not vacate an award unless left with the definite and firm convic-
tion that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
setting the award amount.” Rothenberg, 923 F.3d at 1328. In enact-
ing § 2259, “it is clear that Congress intended to provide victims of
sexual abuse with expansive relief for ‘the full amount of . . . [their]
losses’ suffered as a result of abuse.” Osman, 853 F.3d at 1192 (al-
terations in original) (quoting United States v. Danser, 270 F.3d 451,
455 (7th Cir. 2001)). The government bears the burden of proving
“at least a reasonable estimate” of the losses “based on reliable evi-
dence.” Rothenberg, 923 F.3d at 1340. In showing restitution, the
government has met that burden, and the district court did not
abuse its discretion in awarding restitution.
As to Maureen’s award for $3,000, the district court relied
on the forensic psychological examination, witness impact state-
ment, and affidavit detailing attorney’s costs. Finding that
Maureen’s total losses were between $185,528.18 and $205,128.18,
the district court concluded that Maureen’s total loss was
$205,128.18, relying on the higher end of the estimates in the attor-
ney’s and psychological reports. Sotelo argues that the district
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 40 of 44

40 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

erred and should have relied on the lower estimate, which would
put Maureen’s losses at the amount below the amount of restitu-
tion previously recovered, barring restitution. Sotelo does not,
however, cite any authority showing that a district court has an ob-
ligation to choose the lower end of expert cost estimates. We also
find no such authority. Given the extensive record outlining
Maureen’s incurred and projected costs, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in awarding restitution to Maureen.
As to Pia’s award for $5,000, the district court relied on the
forensic psychological report, witness impact statement, employa-
bility analysis, and affidavit detailing attorney’s costs. The district
court found that Pia’s total losses are between $1,073,919.44 and
$1,710,919.44. Sotelo argues that the district court erred in relying
on census data and comparison data from individuals not similarly
situated to Pia to project future earnings losses. He also attempts
to discredit Pia’s future earnings by pointing out that she recently
won an art award at school. Both arguments fail. First, the district
court did not rely on census data, but rather relied on a vocational
expert’s analysis of the data and Pia’s reasonably projected chal-
lenges in the future workplace. The professional hurdles of child
abuse victims are well documented in the record. Second, Sotelo’s
highly selective focus on Pia’s recent art award in school ignores
the overwhelming message of the victim report that documents
her depression, anxiety, social isolation, self-esteem issues, and
concentration problems. Finally, Pia has been awarded similar res-
titution amounts in other cases before this Court. See Rothenberg,
923 F.3d at 1316–17; United States v. Groover, 2021 WL 3205719, at
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 41 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 41

*3, *5 (11th Cir. July 29, 2021). Thus, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in its restitution award to Pia.
As to Violet’s $10,000 restitution award, the district court re-
lied on the forensic psychological examination, multiple studies ad-
dressing the psychological profiles of adult survivors of child ex-
ploitation, other cases in which district courts awarded victims like
Violet restitution, and a declaration detailing attorney’s fees and
costs. The district court determined that Violet’s total losses are
between $767,616.50 and $813,241.50, which include losses pro-
jected to occur in the future. Noting the relatively large number of
images possessed by Sotelo (eighteen images and twelve videos)
and the evidence showing that it is more likely than not Violet will
need the projected therapy and medical treatments laid out in the
report, the district court deemed $10,000 appropriate restitution.
The district court did not err in reaching that conclusion.
As to Maria’s award for $3,000, the district court relied on
her counsel’s declaration in support of restitution, determining that
Maria’s total losses were $125,000. Sotelo argues that an attorney’s
letter alone is insufficient to establish restitution, but this argument
asks us to go against established precedent. Rothenberg, 923 F.3d at
1337–38 (holding that a signed declaration from victim’s counsel
stating the projected costs of victim’s future medical costs was suf-
ficient evidence to support restitution). Again, the district court
followed the inquiry set forth in Paroline and did not abuse its dis-
cretion in awarding Maria restitution.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 42 of 44

42 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

As to Tori’s award for $3,000, the district court relied on
counsel’s letter detailing the request, the approximate cost of the
forensic examinations needed in the case, and a report of psycho-
logical consultation. The district court determined that Tori’s
losses totaled $20,500, noting that the current total is “almost cer-
tainly understated” given the early nature of her counsel’s work on
documenting her losses. Sotelo objects to this amount on appeal
with arguments already addressed and rejected above. Given the
reasonably projected costs and Sotelo’s role in possessing and serv-
ing as a moderator in a child pornography group, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in awarding Tori restitution.
As to Fiona’s award for $3,000, the district court relied on
the letter detailing restitution from Fiona’s counsel, a victim im-
pact statement by Fiona’s mother, a report of psychological consul-
tation, and a letter calculating the value of certain losses by an eco-
nomics group. The district court determined that Fiona’s total
losses are at least $2,558,635. Sotelo argues that the AVAA did not
contemplate restitution recoveries in the millions of dollars and
criticizes the economic projection report and that the economic re-
port inflated Fiona’s costs. Even assuming the costs were inflated,
the error in calculation would have to be nearly $2.5 million dollars
to alter the district court’s analysis given that Fiona has only re-
ceived $24,000 in prior restitution so far. Since Fiona’s costs are
certainly above her current restitution received by at least $3,000,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the mini-
mum amount.
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 43 of 44

21-12710 Opinion of the Court 43

Finally, as to Jenny’s award for $3,000, the district court re-
lied on the letter from Jenny’s counsel, her victim impact state-
ment, psychological assessment, and a letter calculating losses by
an economics group. The district court found that Jenny’s total
losses are between $1,753,972 and $3,002,606. Again, Sotelo argues
that the lost future earnings are not reasonably projected. He also
argues that Jenny’s projected therapy costs are incorrect because
she has elected not to undergo psychological therapy. The future
earnings projection, however, was based on estimates by econo-
mists, and these kinds of costs are contemplated by the text of the
statute, which includes restitution for “lost income” and “any other
relevant losses incurred by the victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(c)(2)(D);
cf. Rothenberg, 923 F.3d at 1331-32 (discussing United States v. Sainz,
827 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2016), which awarded restitution under
§ 2259 for future lost earnings). And an election not to pursue psy-
chological treatment at this time does not foreclose other types of
costs or even future treatment costs if it is more likely than not that
she will eventually need treatment. It was not unreasonable to
conclude that, through a lifetime of processing abuse and the cir-
culation of the images of that abuse, treatment will more likely
than not be necessary for Jenny. The district court thus did not
abuse its discretion in awarding Jenny restitution.
In all, the district court’s determinations on restitution were
supported by a copious record and within a reasonable range of
$3,000 to $10,000. “[C]hild pornography is ‘a permanent record’ of
the depicted child abuses, and ‘the harm to the child is exacerbated
by [its] circulation.’” Paroline, 572 U.S. at 440. Sotelo possessed at
USCA11 Case: 21-12710 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025 Page: 44 of 44

44 Opinion of the Court 21-12710

least 1,712 images and 245 videos of child pornography, and he was
a moderator in an online group dedicated to the trade of such im-
ages. Because we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
judgment, we affirm the district court’s restitution award.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, we affirm Sotelo’s sentence and the or-
der of restitution.
AFFIRMED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10819690. Public record. Not legal advice.