598 F. App'x 465
8th Cir.2015Background
- Preston pled guilty to conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, mail fraud, and operating a chop shop.
- The district court adopted the parties’ total offense level and sentenced Preston below the Guidelines range to 60 months.
- Preston was ordered to pay $194,107.93 in restitution to identified victims under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.
- In a pro se filing, Preston challenged jurisdiction; counsel filed an Anders brief challenging the restitution amount.
- The appeal waiver in the plea agreement barred non-jurisdictional, non-sentencing issues and most sentencing issues, and the court conducted an independent review under Penson v. Ohio.
- The court affirmed the judgment and granted defense counsel’s withdrawal request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution is reviewable despite the appeal waiver | Preston argues restitution is excessive | The waiver covers non-jurisdictional issues and restitution challenges | Waiver precludes challenge to restitution amount |
| Whether Preston’s jurisdiction challenge is meritorious | Preston asserts lack of district court jurisdiction | District courts have original jurisdiction over offenses | Jurisdiction challenge fails on the merits |
| Whether the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable | N/A / Preston did not contest waiver validity | Waiver is enforceable per controlling cases and preserves the plea agreement terms | Appeal waiver enforceable; does not miscarriage-justice bar for this issue |
| Whether Preston’s pro se challenge to jurisdiction warrants independent review | Preston raises jurisdictional concerns | No meritorious nonfrivolous issues exist | Independent review finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc appeal-waiver rule; limits on challenging a sentence or restitution via waiver)
- United States v. Lee, 502 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2007) (appeal waiver barred challenge to restitution; waiver scope governs)
- Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s plea statements carry strong presumption of verity)
- United States v. Schulte, 436 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2006) (appeal challenging restitution does not fall within miscarriage-of-justice exception)
- United States v. James, 328 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2003) (Laws of the United States apply to all persons within its borders; affirming conviction)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (independent review of record where no nonfrivolous issues)