Case: 09-41238 Document: 00512658314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 09–41238 FILED June 10, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce In re: AMY UNKNOWN, Clerk Petitioner Consolidated with 09–41254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE, Defendant-Appellee v. AMY UNKNOWN, Movant-Appellant

No. 09–31215 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL WRIGHT Defendant-Appellant Case: 09-41238 Document: 00512658314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2014

No. 09–41238 c/w No. 09–41254 No. 09–31215

Appeals from the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Louisiana

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, GARZA, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, the en banc court affirmed the Eastern District of Louisiana’s judgment in United States v. Wright, No. 09–CR–103 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2009), and vacated the Eastern District of Texas’s judgment in United States v. Paroline, 672 F.Supp.2d 781 (E.D. Tex. 2009). In re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The Supreme Court subsequently vacated our judgment and remanded, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 2259 requires “restitution in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s general losses.”

Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 1727 (2014). Likewise, in Wright v. United States, 134 S. Ct 1933 (2014), the Court vacated our judgment in light of Paroline.

* Judge Higginson is recused and did not participate in any aspect of the en banc rehearing. Judge Costa did not participate in the en banc rehearing or in this decision.

Case: 09-41238 Document: 00512658314 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2014

No. 09–41238 c/w No. 09–41254 No. 09–31215 Accordingly, we VACATE the restitution order of the Eastern District of Texas, VACATE the restitution order of the Eastern District of Louisiana, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. 1

1 Michael Wright’s Motion to Remand in No. 09-31215 is denied as moot.