52 F.4th 984
5th Cir.2022Background
- Meredith created a sham company, used fake financials and contracts, and solicited over $7 million from investors.
- Indicted for securities fraud, Meredith pleaded guilty to one count; the government dismissed five other counts under the plea deal.
- As part of the plea agreement Meredith waived his right to appeal “on any ground,” including challenges to monetary penalties or obligations, and agreed restitution would be determined by the court.
- The district court sentenced Meredith to 168 months and ordered about $6.8 million in restitution; Meredith filed an appeal despite the waiver.
- Meredith’s appellate arguments challenged the restitution amount and a criminal-history enhancement; neither argument was preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of appeal waiver (knowing & voluntary) | Waiver was knowing and voluntary; Meredith testified he read and understood the agreement and waiver. | Meredith contends he did not actually waive appeals of monetary penalties because of boilerplate statutory-maximum carveout. | Waiver was knowing and voluntary and enforces dismissal of the appeal. |
| Does the statutory-maximum carveout allow appeals of restitution calculations? | Carveout only permits appeal when the court imposes a sentence exceeding the statute’s legislative maximum, not routine sentencing errors. | Meredith: the statutory-maximum language lets him appeal the restitution calculation. | Carveout does not authorize such appeals; waiver stands. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for restitution amount | PSR and uncontroverted schedule of victim losses supported restitution; district court may determine amounts by preponderance; many victims’ affidavits were not collected but that does not negate proof. | Meredith: victim affidavits sum to less than the award; government failed to prove amounts; insufficient credit for dividends. | Claim is barred by waiver and, on the merits, Meredith failed to preserve objections and would not show plain error. |
| Criminal-history enhancement under U.S.S.G. §4A1.1(d) | Broad appellate waiver bars review of Guidelines application. | Meredith argues the enhancement was misapplied. | Waiver forecloses review; the court dismissed the challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) (appeal is statutory and can be waived)
- Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019) (waivers of rights can be valid if knowing and voluntary)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plea agreements construed like contracts; preservation/plain-error framework)
- United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2005) (statutory-maximum carveout does not reopen broad appeal waivers)
- United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2005) (test for enforcing appeal waivers)
- United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2014) (appeal waivers bar restitution challenges)
- United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011) (enforcing appeal waivers against Guidelines challenges)
- United States v. Chemical & Metal Industries, Inc., 677 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2012) (distinguishable: no plea agreement authorizing restitution in any amount)