United States v. Paul Kaufman, 791 F.3d 86

Paul Kaufman, a salaried employee at a nonprofit that received federal funds, covertly created two outside companies and used his position to approve invoices to those companies, paying himself over $110,000 (2004–2012).
He also charged at least $46,000 in personal expenses to the nonprofit’s credit cards.
Kaufman pled guilty to embezzling from an organization receiving federal funds under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a).
His plea agreement included a broad appeal waiver covering his sentence unless it exceeded the statutory maximum or the Guidelines range.
At the plea colloquy the district court made ambiguous statements suggesting Kaufman might retain some appeal rights if the sentence were “illegal” or if he “did not like” it, prompting the court of appeals to consider the waiver ineffective as explained.
The district court calculated total loss > $120,000 (leading to a 10-level Guidelines enhancement and a 24–30 month range), sentenced Kaufman to 24 months, and expressly stated it would impose the same 24-month term even if it adopted Kaufman’s lower loss figure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of plea-waiver as a bar to appeal	Kaufman argued the plea waiver bars his appeal of the sentence.	Government argued waiver valid because sentence neither exceeded statutory max nor court-determined Guidelines range.	Waiver not enforced: ambiguous colloquy statements by district court opened appellate right; appeal allowed.
Loss calculation and reasonableness of sentence	Kaufman argued loss should be reduced by fair-market value of services his companies provided, lowering Guidelines range and making a shorter sentence appropriate.	Government and district court treated unauthorized payments and card charges as full loss; no credit for work already paid by salary.	Court affirmed: even if loss calculation were reduced, district court said it would impose the same 24-month sentence; sentence within Guidelines and reasonable.

United States v. Godoy, 706 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (judge’s misleading colloquy can nullify an appellate-waiver).
United States v. Fareri, 712 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (prosecutor may correct colloquy errors; failure to do so affects waiver enforcement).
United States v. Thompson, 994 F.2d 864 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (no remand when judge would have imposed same sentence under alternative Guidelines calculation).
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory; courts must consider § 3553(a) factors).
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences).
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (within-Guidelines sentences entitled to a presumption of reasonableness).