Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03506/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03506-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Sistrunk
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3506

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Edward Sistrunk, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 17, 2005

Filed: January 6, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Edward Sistrunk pled guilty to one count of bank fraud, a violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1344. The district court1

 sentenced Sistrunk to twenty-one months’

imprisonment and ordered Sistrunk to pay $29,940 in restitution. Sistrunk appeals

from the judgment. We dismiss Sistrunk’s appeal from his sentence, and we affirm

the restitution order.

Appellate Case: 04-3506 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2006 Entry ID: 1993969
-2-

Sistrunk participated in two bank fraud schemes. In the first scheme, Sistrunk

defrauded Wells Fargo Bank of $19,200. In the second scheme, Sistrunk and his

brother defrauded TCF Bank. A federal grand jury returned a fifteen-count

superseding indictment against the two, which charged them with conspiracy to

commit bank fraud and aiding and abetting each other to illegally obtain funds from

Wells Fargo and TCF. 

Sistrunk and the United States entered into a plea agreement. The agreement

provided that Sistrunk would plead guilty only to the bank fraud against Wells Fargo,

yet he would be “accountable under the relevant conduct provisions of the Sentencing

Guidelines for the bank fraud which occurred . . . at TCF bank. The parties agree

that the loss to both banks [TCF and Wells Fargo] is between $30,000 and $70,000.”

Plea Agreement at 3. During the plea hearing, Sistrunk reiterated his responsibility

to TCF. The district court ordered restitution in the amount of $19,200 to Wells

Fargo and $10,740 to TCF. 

As part of the plea agreement, Sistrunk waived his right to appeal his sentence.

Specifically, the plea agreement states, “[T]he defendant hereby waives all rights

conferred by Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 to appeal his sentence, unless

the Court sentences the defendant above offense level 10.” Plea Agreement at 8.

During the plea colloquy, the district court addressed the consequences of the waiver

and explained that, “Provided that I sentence you at a level of 10 or less, . . . you are

giving up the right to appeal the sentence.” Plea Hr’g Tr. at 37. Sistrunk

acknowledged that he understood this waiver. The district court found the offense

level to be ten and, as stated above, sentenced Sistrunk to twenty-one months’

imprisonment.

The United States argues that Sistrunk waived his right to appeal. We agree

that Sistrunk waived his right to appeal from the sentencing order, but we conclude

that the appeal from the restitution order is beyond the scope of the waiver. “When

Appellate Case: 04-3506 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2006 Entry ID: 1993969
-3-

reviewing a purported waiver, we must confirm that the appeal falls within the scope

of the waiver and that both the waiver and plea agreement were entered into

knowingly and voluntarily.” United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–90 (8th Cir.

2003) (en banc). Because plea agreements are essentially contracts between the

defendant and the Government, we must look to the language of the agreement to

determine the scope of an appeal waiver. Id.; United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031,

1034 (8th Cir. 2005). 

We conclude that Sistrunk knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to

appeal his sentence. The plea agreement states the waiver in unambiguous terms, and

thus we refuse to consider Sistrunk’s contention that the district court erred in ruling

that he was not a minor participant.

Sistrunk did not, however, waive his right to appeal the restitution order. We

addressed this issue in United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam), and United States v. Greger, 98 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 1996). In Greger, we

held that the waiver included the restitution award because the parties agreed to waive

their possible appeals on all issues except jurisdiction. 98 F.3d at 1081–82.

Conversely, in Cupit, we held that the waiver did not include the restitution award

because the agreement stated that the parties, “waive all rights to appeal whatever

sentence is imposed[.]” 169 F.3d at 539. The language of Sistrunk’s plea agreement

is almost identical to that in Cupit. Accordingly, we turn to the merits of Sistrunk’s

appeal from the restitution order.

We have held that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), do not prohibit judicial fact finding for restitution orders. United States v.

Carruth, 418 F.3d 900, 904 (8th Cir. 2005). We therefore review the district court’s

findings of loss for clear error. Id. Sistrunk does not dispute the $19,200 owed to

Wells Fargo because the plea agreement specifically states that amount, but he argues

Appellate Case: 04-3506 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2006 Entry ID: 1993969
-4-

that the district court erred when it ordered him to pay $10,740 to TCF because he

had not admitted to nor been convicted of that amount. We conclude that the record

supports the district court’s finding. During the sentencing proceeding, the district

court noted that it ordered restitution to TCF based on the plea agreement, Sistrunk’s

admission during the plea hearing, and the undisputed evidence that a TCF check was

recovered from Sistrunk. Criminal Sentencing Proceedings Tr. at 47–49. Although

the plea agreement does not stipulate an amount for restitution, the district court did

not clearly err by ordering restitution in the amount of $10,740 to TCF. 

Accordingly, we dismiss Sistrunk’s appeal as to his sentence and affirm the

judgment imposing restitution in the amount of $29,940. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3506 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/06/2006 Entry ID: 1993969