United States v. Okoye, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19819

Okoye stole his brother’s identity to obtain five mortgage loans (one $600,000 loan from First NLC and four loans totaling $438,750 from Taylor Bean) and made no payments; proceeds were used to pay off his own mortgage and pocket excess funds.
He authored an affidavit confessing the fraud, which led to federal prosecution; he pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud and one count of identity fraud in a written plea agreement.
The plea agreement expressly referenced restitution as part of the sentence in multiple sections and described sentencing recommendations including “restitution in the amount of the loss.”
The agreement contained an appeal-waiver clause: Okoye agreed not to appeal or collaterally attack any sentence of 27 months or less (and related clauses), and the government agreed to drop aggravated-identity-theft charges and recommend a reduced sentence.
The district court accepted the plea, granted the government’s motion for downward departure, sentenced Okoye to 21 months’ imprisonment, and ordered restitution ($108,851 to First NLC’s successor and $345,356 to Taylor Bean); Okoye appealed the restitution award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Okoye’s appeal waiver bars appeal of restitution order	Okoye: waiver ambiguous as to whether “sentence” meant only prison term; restitution not waived	Government/District Court: plea expressly included restitution as part of the sentence; waiver covers any sentence	Appeal waiver unambiguously encompassed restitution; appeal dismissed
Whether plea agreement was defective or involuntary	Okoye did not challenge plea validity	Government: plea valid; court ensured understanding at change-of-plea	Plea agreement valid; waiver enforceable
Whether First NLC (dissolved) could receive restitution	Okoye argued no successor-in-interest at sentencing	Government established successor (Morgan Stanley Capital Holdings) after conditional order	District court’s final restitution order in favor of successor permitted; not permitted to be appealed under waiver
Whether contractual interpretation should construe ambiguities for defendant	Okoye relied on narrow reading of “prison sentence” qualifier	Court: interpret whole contract; expressio unius and multiple provisions made restitution part of sentence	Ambiguities construed against allowing appeal, but agreement read holistically and bars appeal

United States v. Ríos-Hernández, 645 F.3d 456 (1st Cir.) (use contract principles to interpret plea agreements)
United States v. Acosta-Román, 549 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (contract interpretation in plea context)
United States v. Acosta, 303 F.3d 78 (1st Cir.) (restitution is part of a sentence)
United States v. Pérez, 514 F.3d 296 (3d Cir.) (appeal waiver bars appeal of restitution)
United States v. Cohen, 459 F.3d 490 (4th Cir.) (waiver of right to appeal sentence includes restitution)
United States v. Sharp, 442 F.3d 946 (6th Cir.) (same)
United States v. Behrman, 235 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir.) (waiver of appeal of any sentence bars restitution appeal)
United States v. Donath, 616 F.3d 80 (1st Cir.) (parties must live by plea bargain)