<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; ZZ: U.S. v. Monzel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/zz-u-s-v-monzel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:15:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Restitution to child porn victim not limited by proximate causation</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/21/5th-circuit-restitution-to-child-porn-victim-not-limited-by-proximate-causation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/21/5th-circuit-restitution-to-child-porn-victim-not-limited-by-proximate-causation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: DC Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Monzel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Wright]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-31215-CR0.wpd.pdf">U.S. v. Wright</a></em>, No. 09-31215 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2011)
This appeal presents issues related to the amount of restitution that a district court may order a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography to pay to one of the children depicted in the images . . . As explained further below, the recent In re Amy panel opinion rejected the causation arguments made by Wright]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/21/5th-circuit-restitution-to-child-porn-victim-not-limited-by-proximate-causation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>D.C. Circuit: Child Pornography Victim Owed More Restitution</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/19/d-c-circuit-child-pornography-victim-owed-more-restitution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/19/d-c-circuit-child-pornography-victim-owed-more-restitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:36:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Monzel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2564</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ . . . The appeals court said Kessler must “order restitution equal to the amount of harm the government proves the defendant caused the victim.” Victims can receive restitution for, among other things, medical services, lost income, attorneys’ fees and rehabilitation. . . . &#124; <em><a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1FCEB0FD6526EAC885257877004E9BFA/$file/11-3008-1303879.pdf">U.S. v. Monzel</a></em>, No. 11-3008 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 19, 2011)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/19/d-c-circuit-child-pornography-victim-owed-more-restitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
