United States v. Carl Kieffer, 794 F.3d 850

Carl Kieffer robbed seven banks (one in Illinois, others in different states) and confessed; he pleaded guilty to three charged robberies and stipulated the government could prove he admitted the other four.
District court calculated a combined Guidelines offense level by treating all seven robberies as relevant conduct and applied the multiple-count adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4, producing a 130–162 month range (offense level 28, CHC V).
Kieffer received concurrent 20-year statutory-maximum sentences on the charged counts and a restitution order totaling $31,845, which included $21,230 for the four uncharged robberies.
Kieffer appealed, challenging (1) inclusion of the four uncharged robberies in the Guidelines calculation and (2) restitution awarded to the banks from the uncharged robberies; review limited to plain error because he did not object at sentencing.
Government waived reliance on Kieffer’s plea-appeal waiver; therefore the court proceeded to consider the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether uncharged robberies could be included for the § 3D1.4 multiple-count adjustment	Kieffer: he only stipulated to confessing to those robberies, not that he committed them, so they should not be counted	Government: stipulation and FBI confirmation suffice to prove commission for sentencing	Held: Stipulation that he admitted robbing and FBI confirmation was sufficiently specific; inclusion for Guidelines was proper (no plain error)
Whether district court had authority to order restitution to victims of uncharged robberies	Kieffer: restitution to uncharged victims is unauthorized because restitution statutes permit awards only to victims of the offense of conviction absent defendant’s consent	Government: restitution discretionary as a supervised-release condition because uncharged offenses were used in Guidelines calculation	Held: Restitution to uncharged victims is unlawful absent statutory basis or defendant consent; order for $21,230 vacated as plain error affecting substantial rights

United States v. Worden, 646 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2011) (plea-appeal waiver scope)
United States v. Adigun, 703 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2012) (forfeiture of reliance on appeal waivers)
United States v. Shutic, 274 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2001) (stipulations as basis for sentencing inclusion)
United States v. Brown, 14 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 1994) (use of stipulations to establish conduct at sentencing)
United States v. Frith, 461 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2006) (restitution limited to victims of the offense of conviction absent consent)
Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990) (statutory limits on restitution)
United States v. Locke, 759 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing Guidelines role from restitution statutes)