1. Whether — in the context of a criminal restitution request on behalf of a victim of child pornography — § 2259/ Paroline requires disaggregation of losses sustained as result of the victim's initial abuse, as distinct from those losses caused by the continuing traffic in the victim's image(s).

2. Whether this Court should provide much needed guidance — both substantive and procedural — as to how district courts should apply the proximate cause standard adopted in Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014).

What, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259?