18 U.S.C. § 2259B
Child pornography victims reserve
The date of the enactment of the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018, referred to in subsec. (d), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 115–299, which was approved
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: United States v. Michael Monzel
United States v. Michael Monzel (2019)
“1 Congress has since amended Section 2259 to both codify Paroline 's basic approach and to set a restitution floor of $3,000. See Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018, Pub.”
United States v. Robert Evans (2022)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(d). That principle applies with even greater force to defendants like Evans who committed an offense and were sentenced prior to enactment.”
United States v. Titus Miller (2022)
“18 U.S.C. § 2259B(a). In the court’s post-judgment Memorandum and Order, it ordered $25,000 as an assessment “for the benefit of other children.”
United States v. Gregory Lukassen (2024)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(d). Lukassen argues that the district court plainly erred by applying the AVAA because the government presented no evidence that his offense for receipt or distribution of child pornography occurred after December 7, 2018.”
United States v. Fredrick Pratt (2021)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(d). The record suggests that the district court used the amendment’s mandatory minimum to support its determination that each of the five victims should be awarded the same $3,000 amount.”
United States v. Azucenas (2024)
“In fact, 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(d) provides, “[i]t is the sense of Congress that individuals who violate this chapter prior to the date of the enactment of the [AVAA], but who are sentenced after such date, shall be subject to the statutory scheme that was in effect at the time the…”
United States v. Rubalcava (2025)
““Special assessments paid pursuant to Section 2259A do not go to a specific victim but rather are deposited and pooled in the ‘Child Pornography Victims Reserve’ established in 18 U.S.C. § 2259B.” United States v. Madrid, 978 F.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(a) — 1 case
United States v. Titus Miller (2022)
“18 U.S.C. § 2259B(a). In the court’s post-judgment Memorandum and Order, it ordered $25,000 as an assessment “for the benefit of other children.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(d) — 5 cases
United States v. Michael Monzel (2019)
“1 Congress has since amended Section 2259 to both codify Paroline 's basic approach and to set a restitution floor of $3,000. See Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018, Pub.”
United States v. Robert Evans (2022)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(d). That principle applies with even greater force to defendants like Evans who committed an offense and were sentenced prior to enactment.”
United States v. Gregory Lukassen (2024)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(d). Lukassen argues that the district court plainly erred by applying the AVAA because the government presented no evidence that his offense for receipt or distribution of child pornography occurred after December 7, 2018.”
United States v. Fredrick Pratt (2021)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(d). The record suggests that the district court used the amendment’s mandatory minimum to support its determination that each of the five victims should be awarded the same $3,000 amount.”
United States v. Azucenas (2024)
“In fact, 18 U.S.C. § 2259B(d) provides, “[i]t is the sense of Congress that individuals who violate this chapter prior to the date of the enactment of the [AVAA], but who are sentenced after such date, shall be subject to the statutory scheme that was in effect at the time the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.