Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01310/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01310-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Donald Brian Winberg
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DONALD BRIAN WINBERG, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-1310 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00160-PAB-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, EBEL, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Donald Brian Winberg pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit 

wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. As part of the plea agreement, 

Mr. Winberg agreed to forfeit the proceeds of the offenses pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). Mr. Winberg’s plea agreement also 

contained a waiver of his right to appeal. Despite his appeal waiver, Mr. Winberg 

has filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge the district court’s final order of 

 *

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law 

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

May 5, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1310 Document: 01019614909 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 1 
2 

forfeiture. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United 

States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We grant the 

government’s motion and dismiss this appeal. 

Mr. Winberg stated in his plea agreement that he “knowingly and voluntarily 

waives the right to appeal any matter in connection with [his] prosecution, 

conviction, or sentence” subject to certain conditions that Mr. Winberg concedes are 

not applicable. R. Vol. I, at 152-53; see Aplt. Resp. to Mot. to Enforce at 2. The 

district court sentenced Mr. Winberg to a total of 87 months of imprisonment, which 

was below the statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to 

commit wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349, and within the advisory guideline 

range of 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment. 

Mr. Winberg also stated in his plea agreement that he agreed to forfeit to the 

government any and all assets and property subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2641(c), including, but not limited to, (1) 

$153,910.20 in currency seized from him; and (2) a money judgment in the amount 

of $1,541,689.90. See R. Vol. I, at 153-54. Additionally, he agreed to waive any 

claim to forfeit a 40 foot Sea Ray Cabin Motorboat, and consented to its disposal by 

whatever means the government deemed reasonable. See id. at 155. Before 

sentencing, the district court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture, and, thereafter, 

a final order of forfeiture entitling the government to Mr. Winberg’s interest in the 

$153,910.20 in currency, and the $1,541,689.90 money judgment. At sentencing, the 

district court orally announced that Mr. Winberg’s sentence “does include forfeiture.” 

Appellate Case: 15-1310 Document: 01019614909 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 2 
3 

Id. Vol. III, at 107. And the forfeiture of the currency and money judgment was 

included in the judgment and conviction “as reflected in the Plea Agreement . . . and 

Final Order of Forfeiture.” Id. Vol. I, at 242. 

In evaluating a motion to enforce an appeal waiver, we consider: “(1) whether 

the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) 

whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) 

whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Hahn, 

359 F.3d at 1325. In response to the government’s motion, Mr. Winberg seems to 

concede that his challenge to the forfeiture order is within the scope of his appellate 

waiver. He admits, for example, that he “agreed to waive appeal of his sentence and 

that forfeiture is an element of the sentence imposed following conviction” and, 

further, that the parties “likely understood [the plea agreement] to preclude [him] 

from challenging the forfeitures on appeal.” Aplt. Resp. to Mot. to Enforce at 4 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). He also does not dispute that he 

executed his waiver knowingly and voluntarily. We therefore need not address these 

issues. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005) (declining 

to consider uncontested issue). Accordingly, we evaluate only Mr. Winberg’s claim 

that enforcing an appeal waiver as to an illegal forfeiture order results in a 

miscarriage of justice. 

Enforcement of an appeal waiver results in a miscarriage of justice only “[1] 

where the district court relied on an impermissible factor such as race, [2] where 

ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the waiver 

Appellate Case: 15-1310 Document: 01019614909 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 3 
4 

renders the waiver invalid, [3] where the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, or 

[4] where the waiver is otherwise unlawful.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327. “This list is 

exclusive: enforcement of an appellate waiver does not result in a miscarriage of 

justice unless enforcement would result in one of the four situations enumerated 

above.” United States v. Polly, 630 F.3d 991, 1001 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Mr. Winberg has the burden to demonstrate that enforcement of his appeal 

waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Anderson, 

374 F.3d 955, 959 (10th Cir. 2004). He contends that the amount of forfeiture 

ordered by the district court exceeds the amount of proceeds of his offenses of 

conviction and, therefore, is in excess of the maximum penalty provided by 18 U.S.C. 

§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), which entitle the government to an amount 

of criminal forfeiture that represents the amount of criminal proceeds. See United 

States v. McGinty, 610 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir. 2010). It is this exception of 

Hahn’s miscarriage-of-justice prong—“sentence exceeds the statutory maximum”—

on which Mr. Winberg therefore appears to rely, see Aplt. Resp. to Mot. to Enforce at 

4-5. He concludes that the final order of forfeiture is unlawful and his appeal waiver 

is inapplicable. 

It is well-established that forfeiture is part of the sentence. See Libretti v. 

United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38-39 (1995). Further, the amount of a criminal 

forfeiture is directly related to the amount of the criminal proceeds. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 981(a)(1)(C) (providing that “[a]ny property, real or personal, which constitutes or 

Appellate Case: 15-1310 Document: 01019614909 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 4 
5 

is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation” of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349 is 

subject to forfeiture to the government); McGinty, 610 F.3d at 1246 (recognizing that 

an in personam judgment in favor of the government for the amount of money the 

defendant obtained as proceeds of the offense is an appropriate form of criminal 

forfeiture). Mr. Winberg does not dispute that the total amount of criminal proceeds 

of his offenses is $1,541,689.90. He argues, however, that “[n]othing in the district 

court’s forfeiture orders, or elsewhere in the record,” reflect that the government’s 

collection of the “[currency] (forfeited de jure) and the yacht (forfeited de facto) 

constitute partial satisfaction of the money judgment.” Aplt. Resp. to Mot. to 

Enforce at 3. Based on this premise, he concludes the final order of forfeiture is 

illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 981 and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 because the amount of forfeiture 

exceeds the amount of proceeds from his offenses of conviction. 

As part of the plea agreement, Mr. Winberg expressly agreed to forfeit any and 

all assets to the government including the $153,910.20 in currency; the money 

judgment in the amount of $1,541,689.90; and his right, title, and interest in the boat. 

The plea agreement provided that the $1,541,689.90 money judgment “represents the 

proceeds obtained from the defendants’ conspiracies.” R. Vol. I, at 153. It further 

provided that “[a]ny assets forfeited, directly or as a substitute asset, shall be applied 

to the forfeiture money judgment.” Id. The record reflects that the presentence 

report likewise states the same — all assets forfeited shall be applied to the forfeiture 

judgment. Thus, despite Mr. Winberg’s claim, the record demonstrates the parties’ 

Appellate Case: 15-1310 Document: 01019614909 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 5 
6 

intent that Mr. Winberg’s forfeited assets would be credited to the forfeiture 

judgment. 

The final order of forfeiture reflects the judgment of forfeiture to the 

government of Mr. Winberg’s interest in the $153,910.20 in currency and provides 

that the government “shall have full and legal title to defendant’s interest in the 

forfeited currency and may dispose of it in accordance with law.” R. Vol. I, at 214. 

Additionally, it orders an in personam forfeiture judgment against Mr. Winberg for 

$1,541,689.90 as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). 

Further, the order of judgment provides that Mr. Winberg “shall forfeit [his] interest 

in the following property to the United States: $153,910.20 in currency seized on 

February 5, 2015, and a money judgment in the amount of $1,541,689.90 as reflected 

in the Plea Agreement . . . and Final Order of Forfeiture.” Id. at 242. 

We conclude Mr. Winberg’s argument that the final order of forfeiture is 

unlawful is without merit. The order does not exceed its authority under the 

forfeiture statutes at issue as it is not in excess of the maximum penalty provided by 

the forfeiture statutes. Further, its silence regarding the forfeiture of the $153,910.20 

in currency and forfeiture of Mr. Winberg’s right, title, and interest in the boat as 

partial satisfaction of the $1,541,689.90 money judgment does not render the final 

order of forfeiture illegal. Accordingly, Mr. Winberg has not met his burden in 

demonstrating that enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. 

Appellate Case: 15-1310 Document: 01019614909 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 6 
7 

The government’s motion to enforce the waiver is granted and the appeal is 

dismissed. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 15-1310 Document: 01019614909 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 7