LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHAT, IF ANY, CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP OR NEXUS BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT AND THE VICTIM'S HARM OR DAMAGES MUST THE GOVERNMENT OR THE VICTIM ESTABLISH IN ORDER TO RECOVER RESTITUTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. §2259.Question Presented:
1. In determining restitution in child pornography cases pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b )(3), is the award of restitution limited to losses proximately caused by the defendant's criminal actions or may a defendant be required to pay restitution for all losses, regardless of whether his criminal acts proximately caused the loss?
2. Whether the Government is correct in its argument that authorizing §3.4 million in restitution against a defendant to a victim of child pornography who has never had contact with the defendant may violate the Eighth Amendment ban on excessive fines in the absence of a proximate cause requirement in the setting of the amount of restitution assessed against that defendant. 1 1Paroline also argued in the District Court and the Fifth Circuit that an award of restitution without a showing of proximate cause would violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority en banc opinion of the Fifth Circuit did not address Paroline's Eighth Amendments concerns.