United States v. Stanislav Pavlenko, 921 F.3d 1286

Stanislav Pavlenko, a Russian citizen, faced 23 federal charges (wire fraud, money laundering conspiracies, etc.) after a 57-count indictment; he was previously convicted on 10 counts, sentence vacated on appeal in United States v. Takhalov.
After remand, Pavlenko and the government executed a settlement: he agreed to abandon his lawful permanent resident status, surrender his green card, and waive any right to return to the U.S. or seek immigration status for at least ten years.
Pavlenko testified in district court that he knowingly and voluntarily entered the settlement; the agreement was filed with the court.
The government moved to dismiss the indictment without prejudice to fulfill the settlement; the motion stated the government could reinstate charges if Pavlenko violated the settlement.
The district court granted the motion and entered an order dismissing the indictment without prejudice and stating the dismissal was "subject to [Pavlenko’s] continued compliance with the Settlement Agreement for the next 10 years," then closed the case.
Pavlenko appealed, arguing the dismissal created a de facto ten-year probation and imposed conditions to which he did not agree.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal dismissal of indictment	Pavlenko: dismissal order deviated from settlement and imposed a 10-year de facto probation he never agreed to	Government: dismissal merely implements the settlement; Pavlenko consented so he lacks appellate standing	Pavlenko lacks standing because the order only dismissed the indictment and caused him no injury
Whether district court imposed new conditions by paraphrasing settlement	Pavlenko: court's language created enforceable conditions and supervisory role	Government: court merely summarized settlement; conditions exist only in the agreement	Court: paraphrase did not create new conditions or retain supervisory authority
Whether dismissal order is final for appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291	Pavlenko: appealed dismissal as erroneous order	Government: argues order may not be final; appellate jurisdiction lacking	Court: did not decide § 1291 issue because lack of standing disposes of appeal
Construction of waiver of "right to return"	Pavlenko: waiver limited to rights tied to lawful permanent resident status; he retained ability to seek admission	Government: waiver relinquished all forms of return/immigration status for ten years	Court: declined to resolve differing interpretations because no justiciable controversy existed

United States v. Takhalov, 838 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2016) (vacating Pavlenko's convictions on jury-instruction ground)
United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2009) (appellate review of jurisdictional questions is de novo)
Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2003) (standing is core to Article III case-or-controversy requirement)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standing and jurisdictional limits explained)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury redressable by court)
Reynolds v. Roberts, 202 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000) (consent to judgment does not bar appeal when judgment deviates from agreement)
Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513 (1956) (criminal defendant not injured by dismissal of indictment and generally lacks standing to appeal dismissal)
United States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2019) (appellate standing requires adverseness; no injury equals no standing)
United States v. Moller-Butcher, 723 F.2d 189 (1st Cir. 1983) (defendant lacks standing to appeal dismissal of indictment)
United States v. Lanham, 631 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1980) (same principle regarding dismissal appeals)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (court lacks inherent authority to enforce private settlement absent retained jurisdiction)
Knight v. Alabama, 14 F.3d 1534 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing adverseness requirement for appellate standing)