USA v. MEIER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:20-cr-79-JAW
)
WILLIAM MEIER 	)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR VICTIM DESIGNATION AND ORDER OF
DEFINED MONETARY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
§ 2259
On 	October 	22, 	2020, 	a 	federal 	grand 	jury 	indicted 	William 	Meier 	for
possession of child pornography, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Indictment
(ECF No. 1). On March 1, 2021, Mr. Meier pleaded guilty to the charge. Min. Entry
(ECF No. 41). On January 31, 2022, the Court sentenced Mr. Meier to 135 months of
incarceration, ten years of supervised release, no fine, a $100 special assessment, and
restitution to twenty-seven victims in the total amount of $86,660 in individual
amounts ranging from $3,000 to $5,000. J. at 6-8 (ECF No. 81).
On November 21, 2025, the Government moved under seal and ex parte for an
order for Defined Monetary Assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(d)(1)(A) on behalf of
one of the victims of Mr. Meier’s crime. 	Mot. for Victim Designation and Order of
Defined Monetary Assistance Payment Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (ECF No. 84)
(Gov’t’s Mot.). 	Upon receipt of the Government’s motion, the Court asked the
Government to justify the ex parte filing of the motion. Sealed Order (ECF No. 85).
On December 8, 2025, the Government responded. 	Gov’t Resp. to Ct. Inquiry
Regarding Ex Parte Filing of ECF No. 84 (ECF No. 86) (Gov’t’s Resp.).
Case 1:20-cr-00079-JAW Document 87 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The Government correctly lists the three criteria for a victim to be eligible for
an award of Defined Monetary Assistance. Gov’t’s Mot. at 3. First the claimant must
appear in child pornography that has been trafficked as that term is defined in 18
U.S.C. § 2259(c)(3); second, at least one defendant must have been convicted in a
federal court of conduct, such as possession of child pornography, involving a visual
depiction of the claimant; and, third, the claimant must appear in a visual depiction
that 	shows 	“sexually 	explicit 	conduct” 	as 	that 	term 	is 	defined 	in 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 2256(2)(A) and must have been under the age of eighteen when the visual depiction
was created. 	Id. 	The Court readily concludes, based on the contents of the
Presentence Investigative Report in this case, which Mr. Meier admitted the accuracy
of at his sentencing hearing, the docket entries in this case, and the Government’s
representations, which the Court accepts, that all three criteria have been met and
that an award from the Defined Monetary Assistance Victims Reserve is appropriate.
See Presentence Investigation Report ¶ 5 (ECF No. 50) (PSR).
Here, the Court earlier issued an order on this victim’s Defined Monetary
Assistance claim. 	On January 28, 2022, the Government moved for a Defined
Monetary Assistance order for the same victim in this case, who is now proceeding
with this motion, Gov’t’s Mot. for Order Concerning Victim Eligibility for Defined
Monetary Assistance (ECF No. 73), and on January 30, 2022, the Court issued a
Defined Monetary Assistance order confirming the victim’s eligibility for a Defined
Monetary 	Assistance 	award. 	Order 	Concerning 	Victim 	Eligibility 	for 	Defined
Monetary Assistance (ECF No. 75) (Eligibility Order). 	As the Government has
Case 1:20-cr-00079-JAW Document 87 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
pointed out, when the Court issued its earlier order, although the Amy, Vicky, and
Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 (AVAA), Public Law 115-299,
had amended the Victim of Crimes Act of 1984 to allow for Defined Monetary
Assistance, the regulations authorized by the AVAA had not yet been promulgated.
Regulations have now been promulgated and are set forth in 28 C.F.R. §§ 81.51-81.59.
Consistent 	with 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 2259(d)(1)(B), 	the 	regulations 	describe 	the
determination that a federal court is required to make in order to approve a Defined
Monetary Assistance claim:
A 	Federal 	court 	will 	make 	the 	determination, 	under 	18 	U.S.C.
[§] 2259(d)(1)(B), 	as 	to 	whether 	a 	claimant 	is 	entitled 	to 	defined
monetary assistance from the Reserve and, if so, shall order payment in
the amount specified in 18 U.S.C. [§] 2259(d)(1)(D). 	This amount is
$35,000 as adjusted for inflation from December 7, 2018, based on the
date of the court's order, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. [§] 2259(d)(1)(D).
28 C.F.R. § 81.53(b). 	Here, the Government previously established that the victim
who is making the current claim is entitled to defined monetary assistance. 	Gov’t’s
Mot. for Order Concerning Victim Eligibility for Defined 	Monetary Assistance;
Eligibility Order at 1. 	Furthermore, the Government has been careful to establish
that the victim here has not been subject to an order of restitution in this case, so the
prohibition 	in 	the 	statute, 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 2259(d)(3), 	and 	regulation, 	28 	C.F.R.
§ 81.53(d)(3), against a Defined Monetary Assistance award to victims who have
received more than $35,000 in restitution does not apply here.
The Court notes the following. First, the Government has represented that the
victim has not received a restitution award from Mr. Meier, and the Court accepts
that representation. 	Even though the statutory language is broader than just the
Case 1:20-cr-00079-JAW Document 87 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
immediate 	defendant 	and 	imposes 	a 	limitation 	on 	recovery 	from 	the 	Defined
Monetary Assistance Victims Reserve when a “victim . . . has collected payment of
restitution pursuant to this section,” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(d)(2)(3) (emphasis supplied),
the Court is satisfied that the victim has not received restitution from other
perpetrators pursuant to this section. See PSR ¶ 5.
Second, although the Government maintains that this entire process should be
sealed, the Court remains unconvinced. The AVAA expressly contemplates that the
Court must issue a court order authorizing the distribution of Child Pornography
Victims Reserve, also known as the Defined Monetary Assistance Victims Reserve, to
an eligible victim. 18 U.S.C. § 2259(d)(1)(C). The victim has undoubted and properly
protective rights of privacy. 	See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d), § 3664(d)(4), § 3771(a)(8); 28
C.F.R. § 81.59. The public also has a right to be aware of the expenditure of monies
held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of sex abuse victims. 	See
generally United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2013); 18 U.S.C. § 2259B
(describing the funding mechanism for the Defined Monetary Assistance Victims
Reserve and the role of the Attorney General in administering the funds). Under 18
U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2), the statute makes it clear that papers filed in court involving
minor victims must be sealed but only if they “disclose the name of or any other
information concerning a child.” 	The Court does not see how a generalized order,
authorizing a distribution to an unnamed victim, from the Defined Monetary
Assistance Victims Reserve, similar to the order already issued in this case, affects
Case 1:20-cr-00079-JAW Document 87 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
the victim’s privacy, and on balance, the public has a right of access to the fact of an
award from the Defined Monetary Assistance Victims Reserve.1
Fourth, although the Government takes the position that the relief requested
“has no impact on the defendant and affords him no right to respond” and that the
entire matter may be issued ex parte, Gov’t’s Resp. at 1, the Court views the law as
somewhat more nuanced. 	The Court accepts the Government’s position that a
defendant does not usually have a right to object to an award from the Defined
Monetary Assistance Victims Reserve but not that the defendant has no right to know
that such an award was issued in his case and potentially to move for an order
reflecting the impact of the Defined Monetary Assistance award on his restitution
obligations.
Indeed, 	there 	is 	a 	statutory 	interrelationship 	between 	the 	restitution 	a
perpetrator owes and a Defined Monetary Assistance award. 	Under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2259(2)(C), if a victim obtains payment from the Defined Monetary Assistance
Victims Reserve and subsequently seeks restitution from a perpetrator, a court “shall
deduct 	the 	amount 	the 	victim 	received 	in 	defined 	monetary 	assistance 	when
1 	In fact, the Court does not know why this order and the Order of Defined Monetary Payment
should not be unsealed. The Court has attempted to write the order in such a way that the identity of
the victim is not revealed, and if the victim’s identity is not revealed, the Court does not know why the
order should not be publicly available to the extent it may provide future guidance, which if sealed will
be unavailable. Similarly, the Order of Defined Monetary Payment does not reveal who the victim is.
Furthermore, because the Court previously issued the Order Concerning Victim Eligibility in this case,
Mr. Meier is aware that she was likely to seek a Defined Monetary Payment after sentencing.
The Court, therefore, orders the Government to respond with its position regarding unsealing
within two weeks of the date of this order. At the same time, the Court acknowledges the Government
may have a unique reason that this order and the order of Defined Monetary Assistance should be
sealed that the Court is unaware of. Therefore, the Court also orders that this order and the order of
Defined Monetary Assistance remain sealed pending further order of the Court.
Case 1:20-cr-00079-JAW Document 87 Filed 01/02/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
determining the full amount of the victim’s losses.”2 See United States v. Dickey, No.
3:23-cr-59, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134995, at *4 (M.D. Pa. July 31, 2024); United
States v. Hollman, 1:18-cr-10037-JBM-JEH-1, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19371, at *18-
19 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2019) (discussing entitlement to an award from the Defined
Monetary 	Assistance 	Victims 	Reserve 	Fund), 	recommendation 	declined 	and
remanded on other grounds, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16617 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2019).
Tragically, victims are often the subject of multiple perpetrators who download the
same images across the world and, as a result, victims may be the recipients of
multiple restitution awards.
Because there is a potential relationship in a given case between restitution
awards and a Defined Monetary Assistance award, the Court is dubious that the
Government is correct when it contends that a defendant has no right to know
about—as opposed to object to—a Defined Monetary Assistance award. 	In the
unusual case, where a victim received a Defined Monetary Assistance award of
$35,000 and then sought restitution from a perpetrator, for example, a defendant
would have to have the right to know of the award so that the net restitution amount
could reflect 	the 	Defined Monetary 	Assistance 	award and thereby 	reduce 	the
defendant’s restitution obligation. From the Court’s perspective, this only means that
the fact a court approved a Defined Monetary Assistance award in a particular case
should appear on the docket, so that a defendant who is subject to a restitution award
2 	Also, if a victim has received restitution from a perpetrator in an amount greater than $35,000
plus inflation, the victim is not eligible to receive a Defined Monetary Assistance award. 18 U.S.C.
§ 2259(d)(3).
Case 1:20-cr-00079-JAW Document 87 Filed 01/02/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
can gain notice of it and act, if appropriate, to reduce his restitution obligation. The
court’s order need not infringe on the victim’s right of anonymity or use of pseudonym.
Fifth, the AVAA provides that the $35,000 will be annually adjusted for
inflation 	each 	calendar 	year 	after 	2018. 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 2259(d)(1)(D)(ii). 	The
Government has not provided the Court with the current amount, adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, as of the date of this order.
Accordingly, the Court has clarified in the order that the victim here is entitled to
receive the current amount available to an individual claimant based on the current
value, as increased by the Consumer Price Index, not the original $35,000.00
authorized in 2018 by Congress.
The Court therefore GRANTS the Government’s Motion for Victim Designation
and Order of Defined Monetary Assistance Payment Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259
(ECF No. 84) insofar as it approves the award and ORDERS the Department of
Justice to make payment to the victim in DMVAR-2025-000353 in the amount of
$35,000 as adjusted for inflation under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(d)(1)(D)(ii). 	The Court
ORDERS that the Government’s Motion for Victim Designation and Order of Defined
Monetary Assistance Payment Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (ECF No. 84), the
Court’s Order (ECF No. 85), the Government’s Response to Court Inquiry Regarding
Ex Parte Filing of ECF No. 84 (ECF No. 86), this Order, and the contemporaneous
Order of Defined Monetary Assistance Payment Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259 remain
indefinitely sealed, subject to further court order. 	The Court GRANTS in part and
preliminarily DENIES in part the Government’s Motion for Victim Designation and
Case 1:20-cr-00079-JAW Document 87 Filed 01/02/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Order of Defined Monetary Assistance Payment Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (ECF
No. 84) insofar as it requests that all proceedings be ex parte and that all docket
entries be sealed. Instead, the Court will issue a brief order confirming its approval
of the award but maintaining the anonymity of the victim. As the Court would like
the Government’s input into whether this order and the Order of Defined Monetary
Assistance Payment Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259 should be unsealed as well, the
Court ORDERS the Government to respond with its position on unsealing these
orders within two weeks of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2026
Case 1:20-cr-00079-JAW Document 87 Filed 01/02/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>