United States v. Yooho Weon, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14446

Weon owned Parkway Pawn Shop, Inc. and Earth 1 Computer, Inc. and ran them as a single enterprise with unified books and records.
He pleaded guilty to five counts of willfully evading corporate income taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 as part of a plea agreement.
The plea fixed the total tax loss at approximately $2,400,000, a figure both sides treated as stipulated for sentencing.
The government agreed not to pursue higher loss figures, and the plea included a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a potential one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b).
Before sentencing, Weon learned the loss was actually around $40,000 and argued the single-entity theory and new forensic accounting; the district court kept to the $2.4 million stipulation for sentencing purposes.
The court later denied a motion to withdraw the plea, adopted the guidelines range based on the stipulation, and sentenced Weon to 30 months, below the calculated guidelines range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate waiver forecloses this appeal.	Weon argues the waiver is ambiguous given the district court’s finding of a 20 base level instead of 19.	Weon contends the waiver is not unambiguously applicable to these issues.	Waiver not unambiguous; appeal is allowed.
Whether the district court Procedurally erred by not considering the lower tax loss.	Weon says the loss figure was materially lower and should have been considered under §3553(a).	Weon is bound by the loss amount stipulated in the plea.	No procedural error; stipulation binds the court.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing by enforcing the stipulation and denying withdrawal.	Weon argues he could withdraw or contest the loss amount.	The court properly enforced a knowing, voluntary plea stipulation.	District court did not abuse its discretion.
Whether the 30-month sentence is substantively reasonable.	Weon’s crimes involved large unreported income and prior counterfeit offenses.	A below-guidelines sentence reflects the seriousness and the plea benefit.	Not substantively unreasonable; presumption of reasonableness applied to within-range sentence.

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (validity of appellate waivers in criminal pleas; heightened scrutiny for ambiguities)
United States v. Davis, 714 F.3d 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (interpretation of plea agreements and waivers; contract-law principles)
United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) (ambiguity and enforceability of plea terms; knowing voluntariness)
United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (binding nature of pleaded loss amounts; firm pledges bind defendant)
United States v. Granik, 386 F.3d 404 (2d Cir. 2004) (stipulations as bargaining chips; generally binding on substance of loss figures)
United States v. Williams, 510 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2007) (defendant bound by stipulated factual admissions when no exceptional circumstances)
United States v. Chase, 466 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2006) (district court findings reviewed for clear error; deference to factual determinations)
PCS Nitrogen Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston LLC, 714 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2013) (contract-law principles govern conflict between general and specific contract terms)
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentences within guidelines)