United States v. Ricky Keele
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10183
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Keele pled guilty to removing property to prevent seizure and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2232(a) and 2; restitution was ordered under MVRA.
- Plea agreement stated restitution could extend to all relevant conduct, not limited to the offense of conviction.
- Plea agreement included an appeal waiver covering direct appeal and collateral review, with limited exceptions.
- PSR described a broad conspiracy with substantial losses ($3.69M in statements; $15–20M total estimated).
- District court sentenced 24 months and ordered $3,691,102.70 restitution; Keele appeals the restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the appeal waiver bar appeal of the restitution order? | Keele argues waiver not explicit about restitution. | Government contends waiver covers any sentence challenges, including restitution. | Yes, waiver bars appeal of the restitution order. |
| Does the appeal waiver clause bar Keele's Eighth Amendment challenge to restitution? | Keele asserts Eighth Amendment concerns are reviewable. | Government maintains waiver extends to Eighth Amendment challenges on appeal. | Yes, Eighth Amendment claims are waived. |
| Was Keele's waiver knowing and voluntary, supporting its validity? | Keele contends waiver may not have been properly understood. | Government asserts clear advisements and Keele knowingly waived rights. | Waiver was knowing and voluntary. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725 (5th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of waiver's impact on appeal)
- United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2005) (two-step inquiry for validity of appeal waiver)
- United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2005) (waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1994) (right to appeal knowing one gave up)
- United States v. Smith, 528 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2008) (restitution and waivers interplay; narrow holdings)
- Lam, 233 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2000) (restitution waiver not mentioning restitution may not bar review)
- United States v. Lytle, 90 F. App’x 453 (5th Cir. 2004) (waiver barred Eighth Amendment claims on appeal (unpublished))