<?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. Wright</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/zz-u-s-v-wright/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:58:51 +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>
	</channel>
</rss>
