The 8th Circuit decided N.D. case United States v. Nicholas Nesdahl, U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 24-2404
Nicholas Nesdahl, posing as a teenager, used social media to contact several minor girls and solicit sexually explicit images and videos. In one instance, he directed a 13-year-old girl to record herself sexually abusing her 6-year-old stepsister. The abuse was discovered by the older girl’s mother, who notified authorities. Law enforcement identified Nesdahl as the recipient and found he had received similar material from at least seven other minors across the country. Nesdahl was indicted in both the District of North Dakota and the Western District of Pennsylvania, with the latter case transferred to North Dakota. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts from the Pennsylvania indictment (involving receipt of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a minor) and seven counts from the North Dakota indictment (all for sexual exploitation of a minor).
The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report, which recommended the statutory maximum sentence and identified nine victims, triggering mandatory restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2). Nesdahl did not object to the restitution order. At sentencing, the court imposed 600 months’ imprisonment and ordered $3,000 in restitution for each of the nine victims.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the restitution order for plain error and found that mandatory restitution under § 2259(b)(2) applies only to certain trafficking offenses, not to convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The court held that restitution was only authorized for the two victims associated with the § 2252(a)(2) conviction, not for the other seven victims. The Eighth Circuit vacated the restitution award and remanded for a new order reflecting only the two qualifying victims. The court affirmed the 600-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable and within the district court’s discretion. (Summary Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/24-2406/24-2406-2025-06-10.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2025-06-11-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-eighth-circuit-47440c4b25&utm_content=text-case-title-2)
