United States v. Cifuentes-Lopez

── United States v. Cifuentes-Lopez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-6177 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 14, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 24-6177 (D.C. No. 5:19-CR-00364-G-1) ROLANDO CIFUENTES-LOPEZ, (W.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION Rolando Cifuentes-Lopez pleaded guilty to two counts of child sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1591, and 1594. See United States v. Cifuentes-Lopez, 40 F.4th 1215, 1217 (10th Cir. 2022). The victims of his commercial sex crimes are D.H. and S.H. The district court entered awards of restitution to D.H. and S.H. See 18 U.S.C. § 1593. Cifuentes-Lopez appeals, claiming the restitution awards are improper because the government failed to adduce proof D.H. and S.H. suffered losses that would not have occurred but for his illegal conduct. United States v. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 24-6177 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 2 Anthony (Anthony I), 942 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2019), and United States v. Anthony (Anthony II), 22 F.4th 943 (10th Cir. 2022), compel the conclusion the government failed to present sufficient proof of but-for causation. Thus, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court reverses the district court’s award of restitution. The matter is remanded to the district court for the sole purpose of vacating those portions of the judgment mandating restitution. II. BACKGROUND Officers received a tip N.H. 1 was prostituting her minor daughters, D.H. and S.H. An investigation revealed N.H. was trafficking D.H. and S.H. to multiple men, including Cifuentes-Lopez. In separate indictments, the government charged Cifuentes-Lopez, N.H., and two additional adult males with child sex trafficking offenses. Cifuentes-Lopez pleaded guilty to (1) patronizing D.H., a minor, “for a commercial sex act”; and (2) patronizing S.H., a minor, “for a commercial sex act.” The district court sentenced him to a lengthy term of imprisonment, a sentence this court affirmed on direct appeal. Cifuentes-Lopez, 40 F.4th at 1217. The government sought restitution for D.H. and S.H. See 18 U.S.C. § 1593 (commonly referred to as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”)). 2 It argued that because all four defendants “pleaded guilty to child sex 1 This court uses initials to reference N.H. for the sole purpose of shielding the identities of the victims. 2 The TVPRA “requires the defendant to pay the victim the full amount of the victim’s losses. . . . [T]he full amount of