
    In re Amy UNKNOWN, Petitioner. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee. Doyle Randall Paroline, Defendant-Appellee v. Amy Unknown, Movant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Wright, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 09-41238, 09-41254, 09-31215.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 10, 2014.
    Brian Marshall Klebba, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James R. Mann, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, Michael A. Rotker, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Amanda Louise Griffith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorneys Office, Plano, TX, Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robin Elise Sehulberg, Attorney, Cov-ington, LA, Roma Ajubita Kent, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Virginia Laughlin Schlueter, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, Fred Rimes Files, Jr., Esq., Bain, Files, Jarrett, Bain & Harrison, Tyler, TX, Stanley G. Schneider, Schneider & McKinney, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Paul G. Cassell, Esq., University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, James R. Marsh, Esq., Attorney, Marsh Law Firm, White Plains, NY, for Petitioner and Mov-ant-Appellant.
    
      Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, GARZA, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges 
    
    
      
       Judge Higginson is recused and did not participate in any aspect of the en banc rehearing. Judge Costa did not participate in the en banc rehearing or in this decision.
    
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, the en banc court affirmed the Eastern District of Louisiana’s judgment in United States v. Wright, No. 09-CR-103 (E.D.La. Dec. 16, 2009), and vacated the Eastern District of Texas’s judgment in United States v. Paroline, 672 F.Supp.2d 781 (E.D.Tex.2009). In re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir.2012) (en banc). The Supreme Court subsequently vacated our judgment and remanded, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 2259 requires “restitution in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s general losses.” Paroline v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 1727, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014). Likewise, in Wright v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1933, 188 L.Ed.2d 955 (2014), the Court vacated our judgment in light of Paroline.

Accordingly, we VACATE the restitution order of the Eastern District of Texas, VACATE the restitution order of the Eastern District of Louisiana, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. 
      
      . Michael Wright’s Motion to Remand in No. 09-31215 is denied as moot.
     