United States of America v. David Enrique Remigio

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1607
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
David Enrique Remigio
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: May 11, 2026
Filed: August 20, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
David Remigio pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography,
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1). In his plea agreement, he “agree[d] that the
Court shall order restitution” of “no less than $3,000 per victim.” The presentence
report identified “100 different series” of child pornography from the images and
videos seized from Remigio. Those series had known victims, and the PSR listed

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
twelve who requested restitution. Remigio did not object to the PSR. At sentencing
the district court awarded restitution for the twelve victims, plus $3,000 for
“Audrey,” a victim who appeared in one of the series identified in the PSR. The
Government did not introduce any evidence about her loss at sentencing, and
Remigio did not object. The district court1 sentenced Remigio to 192 months in
prison and 5 years of supervised release. It ordered restitution in the amount of
$39,000.
Remigio argues that the district court plainly erred by ordering him to pay
Audrey $3,000 in restitution. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (standard of review);
United States v. Binkholder, 832 F.3d 923, 930 (8th Cir. 2016) (same). His main
assignment of error is that the district court “impos[ed] restitution without any
evidence in the record to support the award.” He also takes issue with the court’s
alleged failure to follow the “specific procedure” required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664, and
he complains that the United States Attorney and the United States Probation Office
do not allow defense counsel access to restitution requests before release of the draft
PSR, a practice that “creates confusion and uncertainty.”
We are not convinced that any of these allegations amount to “clear” or
“obvious” error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). Remigio admits
that federal law “calls for mandatory restitution of $3,000 for victims,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 2259(b)(2)(B), that he agreed in his plea agreement to pay “for the full amount of
each victim’s losses, which is no less than $3,000,” and that Audrey was a known
victim in one of the series listed in the PSR. He also concedes that the Government
“may very well be able” to prove up Audrey’s losses on remand. So even if the
district court erred, we would not exercise our discretion to correct the error because
it did not “seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 736.
1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See United States v. Lukassen,
103 F.4th 1325, 1332 (8th Cir. 2024) (“[G]iven that Congress now has established
that $3,000 is the minimum reasonable amount of restitution per victim in this
circumstance, we also conclude that leaving the awards in place would not result in
a miscarriage of justice.”).
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --