United States v. Tynae K. Lester, Also Known as Gabriel Quiles
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Tynae K. LESTER, Also Known as Gabriel Quiles, Appellant
Opinion of the Court
MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
Tynae K. Lester appeals from an order directing him to pay restitution in the amount of $138,041.40. We decline to review Mr. Lester’s arguments because in his plea agreement with the government he specifically undertook “to pay any restitution ordered by the District Court.” We have held several times that a defendant’s agreement to pay the restitution that a district court orders is binding. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1239, 1240 (8th Cir.1997), and United States v. Marsh, 932 F.2d 710, 713 (8th Cir.1991). Such agreements are in fact specifically authorized by statute: 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (a)(3) states that “[t]he court may ... order restitution in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement.”
*1180 Because Mr. Lester’s agreement bars this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Dissent
LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, a plea agreement undertaking “to pay any restitution ordered by the District Court” is not a knowing waiver of the right to appeal an unlmvful restitution order. In this case, rejecting the government’s argument at sentencing for a lesser amount, the district court ordered Tynae Lester to pay restitution for losses caused by his conspirators before he joined the conspiracy. That order is contrary to our decision in United States v. Cain, 128 F.3d 1249, 1253 (8th Cir.1997). Accordingly, I would remand for resentencing in accordance with Cain .
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
200 F.3d 1179 (8th Cir. 2000)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, V. TYNAE K. LESTER, ALSO KNOWN AS GABRIEL QUILES, APPELLANT
No. 98-4153
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Submitted: October 28, 1999 Filed: January 31, 2000 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 7, 2000 *
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Before Beam, Loken, and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges.
Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judge 1
Tynae K. Lester appeals from an order directing him to pay restitution in the amount of $138,041.40. We decline to review Mr. Lester's arguments because in his plea agreement with the government he specifically undertook "to pay any restitution ordered by the District Court." We have held several times that a defendant's agreement to pay the restitution that a district court orders is binding. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1239, 1240 (8th Cir. 1997), and United States v. Marsh, 932 F.2d 710, 713 (8th Cir. 1991). Such agreements are in fact specifically authorized by statute: 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (a)(3) states that "[t]he court may ... order restitution in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement."Because Mr. Lester's agreement bars this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Notes:
* Judge Loken would grant the rehearing by the panel.
2
LOKEN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
3
I respectfully dissent. In my view, a plea agreement undertaking "to pay any restitution ordered by the District Court" is not a knowing waiver of the right to appeal an unlawful restitution order. In this case, rejecting the government's argument at sentencing for a lesser amount, the district court ordered Tynae Lester to pay restitution for losses caused by his conspirators before he joined the conspiracy. That order is contrary to our decision in United States v. Cain, 128 F.3d 1249, 1253 (8th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, I would remand for resentencing in accordance with Cain.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(defendant waived his right to challenge the restitution order when he agreed in the plea agreement to pay whatever restitution was ordered)
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.