Case ID: f-appx_422/html/0867-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mickey Alexander PETERSON, a.k.a. Mickey Alexander Petersen, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-15351.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 11, 2011.
    Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lori M. Beranek, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy R. Saviello, Law Offices of Tim Saviello, L.L.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before MARTIN, FAY and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mickey Alexander Peterson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to waive the interest imposed on his restitution payment. After oral argument, review of the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

We have determined, and Peterson does not dispute, that the District Judge advised Peterson about the meaning and effect of the appeal waiver at the time he entered his plea of guilty. The plea agreement stated Peterson “voluntarily and expressly waives the right to appeal his sentence ... on any ground, except that the defendant may file a direct appeal if the sentence imposed contains a term of imprisonment in excess of twenty-five (25) years.” Peterson’s plea agreement also stated he agreed to “pay any fine and/or restitution imposed by the Court.” The restitution includes any interest imposed by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f). Therefore, the appeal-waiver provision in Peterson’s plea agreement covers appeals regarding interest payments on restitution.

AFFIRMED.