Summary
The Fifth Circuit affirmed Giovanny Limon’s sentence for sex trafficking of a minor, rejecting challenges concerning the consideration of victim-impact statements and two restitution awards. The court held that the victim’s mother could recover lost wages incurred as a proximate result of the offense and that restitution for clothing purchased to help the victim feel safer was authorized. The court remanded for correction of a clerical inconsistency between the oral sentencing pronouncement and the amended written judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court plainly erred by considering the entirety of the victim's impact statement, including statements Limon characterized as irrelevant and inflammatory, without striking those portions sua sponte.
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1593 authorized restitution for $210 in lost wages incurred by the minor victim's mother while accompanying the victim at the hospital.
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1593 authorized restitution for $500 spent by the minor victim's mother on hoodies purchased to help the victim feel safer in public after the trafficking.
- Whether the written amended judgment contained a clerical error because its payment schedule differed from the district court's oral restitution pronouncement.
Holdings
- The district court did not plainly err by considering the entire victim-impact statement and was not required, sua sponte, to strike the challenged portions.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1593, the district court acted within its statutory authority by ordering restitution for $210 in lost wages incurred by the minor victim's mother while accompanying the victim at the hospital.
- The district court acted within its statutory authority by ordering $500 in restitution for hoodies purchased by the minor victim's mother to help the victim feel safer in public.
- The written amended judgment contained a clerical error because its restitution-payment schedule did not conform to the district court's oral pronouncement; the case was remanded solely for correction of that error.
Key quotations
“Victim impact evidence is simply another form or method of informing the sentencing authority about the specific harm caused by the crime in question, evidence of a general type long considered by sentencing authorities.” (6)
“In this case, the plain language of the statute allows for Minor Victim 1’s mother to recover the $210 in lost wages awarded by the district court.” (14)
“Necessity is not the standard.” (16)
“We therefore remand to the district court solely to correct the amended judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement.” (17)
Factual background
Limon took in a fifteen-year-old runaway, repeatedly had sex with her against her will, supplied her with drugs, and pressured her into commercial sex work. He arranged provocative photographs and internet advertisements, organized paid sexual encounters, collected the resulting money, and monitored and intimidated the victim. After the victim obtained help from her family, she received hospital care and remained fearful and traumatized.
Procedural history
A federal grand jury indicted Limon for sex trafficking of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), (b), and (c). After a three-day jury trial, he was convicted, and the district court imposed a 480-month prison sentence, ten years of supervised release, and restitution after a later restitution hearing. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence and restitution rulings but remanded under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct the written amended judgment so that it conforms to the oral pronouncement.
Remand instructions
Remand solely to correct the amended written judgment so that its restitution-payment schedule conforms to the district court's oral pronouncement.