A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se th e re fo re is o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. ADRI AN COO P ER, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6309

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 2 1 4 - T) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * Scot tE . W i l l i ams, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( and J ohn C . R i cht er , U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , on the br i ef) , O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma, forPl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee. Susa n M . O t t o, Feder al Publ i c D efe nder , O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma, for D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.- 2 -

K E L L Y , C i r cui tJ udge. D efen d an t- A p p ell an t A d ri an C o o p er se ek s to a p p ea l th e re sti tuti o n aw ard im p o se d b yth e d istric t co u rt a n d its d e c isio n to re q u ire M r. C o o p e r to su b m it a D N A s ampl e as a condi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. Speci fi cal l y , M r . C ooper ar gues thatthe governm entfai l ed t o pr oduce s uffi ci entevi dence t o pr ove that J os hua K uhn w as a “vi ct i m ” of M r . C ooper ’ s r el at ed conduc t , and thatthe t ot al res t i tuti on aw ard shou l d b e reduced by$1 35 , 00 0 as a resul t . M r. C oo per al so a rg u e s th a t th e c o n d iti o n o f su p e rv ise d re lea se v io late s th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, gi ven thathe i s a fi r s t - t i m e offenderconvi ct ed of non- vi ol entcr i m es . T he governm entr es ponds thatM r . C ooper ’ s ent i r e appe al i s barr ed bythe w ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l cont ai ned i n hi s pl ea a gr eement . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a), w e c o n clud e tha t bo th o f M r. C o o p er’s c h a llen g e s fa ll w ith in th e sc o p e o f th e w a iv e r a n d , ac c o rd in g ly , w e d ism iss h is a p p e a l. Backg r ound O n N ovember16, 2005, a gr and j uryi s s ued a ni net een- counti ndi ctm ent agai ns tM r . C ooperchar gi ng hi m w i th s ecur i t i es fr aud, w i r e and mai l fr aud, m oneyl aunder i ng, and the us e of fal s e s oci al - s ecur i tynum ber s . R . D oc. 1. T he char ges s t emm ed fr om s ever al s chemes cr eat ed byM r . C oopert o defr aud i nves t or s w hi l e he w or ked as a s t ock br okeratM err i l l L ynch and t o defr aud r ealT he M and at oryV i ct i m s R est i tuti on A ctst at es that “[t ]he cou rtshal l al so 1 or der , i f agr eed t o bythe part i es i n a pl ea a gr eement , r es t i tut i on t o per s ons other than the v ict im o f th e o ffen se [ o f c o n v ict ion ]. ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 6 6 3 A (a)(3). - 3 - e sta te in v e sto rs a n d o th e r in v e sto rs in d e p e n d e n t o f h is e m p lo ym e n t at M e rrill L ynch. O n M ar ch 27, 2006, M r . C ooperpl ed gui l tyt o C ount1 ( s ecur i t i es fr aud) and C ount4 ( m oneyl aunder i ng) pur s uantt o a negot i at ed pl ea a gr eementw i th t he governm ent . R . D ocs . 23 & 24. T he i ndi ctm entdes cr i bed i n det ai l the vi ct i m s of the a cts th at fo rm ed the b asis fo r C o u n ts 1 a n d 4 . T h e ind ictm en t did n o t l istM r. K u h n a s a v ictim o f

e ith e r c o u n t. T he pl ea a gr eements t at ed: [T]he C our tm us tor derthe paym entof r es t i tut i on t o the vi ct i m s of the offens e. Pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . §§ 3663( a) ( 3) and 3663A , the part i es fur theragr ee that , as partof the s ent ence r es ul t i ng fr om the d e fe n d a n t’s p lea , the C o u rt w ill e n ter a n o rd e r o f re stitu tio n fo r a ll lo ss e s c a u se d to th e v ictim s o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s re lev a n t co n d u c t[ ] 1 determ i ned byrefer ence to the U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i nes. R . D o c . 2 3 a t 2 -3 . T h e p lea a g re e m e n t als o c o n tain e d a w a iv e r o f th e rig h t to appea l , i n w hi ch M r . C ooperagr eed t o:

. . . k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e [ ] h is rig h t to a p p e a l, col l at er al l ychal l enge, orm ove t o m odi fy. . . [hi s ] gui l typl ea a nd anyotheras pectof hi s convi ct i on . . . [and the] s ent ence as i m pos ed b yth e C o u rt a n d th e m a n n e r i n w h ic h th e s e n te n c e is d e te rm in e d . . .

. I d. at5. A ccor di ng t o the pr e- s ent ence r eport( PSR ) , M r . C ooper ’ s r el evantconduct i nc l ud e d $ 20 0, 00 0 i n r e l a t e d f r a ud a ga i ns tM r . K uh n. O f thi s a mount , the PSR- 4 -

concl uded thatM r . C oopers t i l l ow ed M r . K uhn $135, 000. M r . C ooperobj ect ed t o the $135, 000 fi gur e bec aus e M r . K uhn pos s es s ed a four th- i n- l i ne mort gage on M r . C ooper ’ s hous e and c oul d pos s i bl yr ecove rthe ent i r e amountupon fo re c lo s u re . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt o v e rr u le d M r. C o o p e r’ s o bje c tio n . O n Sept ember18, 2006, the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d M r . C oopert o s erve 75 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . I tal s o or der ed M r . C oopert o payr es t i tut i on t o var i ous v ictim s in th e to tal a m o u n t o f $ 9 6 8 ,6 5 6 , w h ich in c lu d e d $ 1 3 5 ,0 0 0 in re stitu tio n to M r. K u h n . T h e d istri ct co u rtalso im p o sed , as a co n d it ion o f M r. C o o p er’s s upervi s ed r el eas e, thathe “c ooper at e i n the col l ect i on of D N A as di r ect ed bythe p ro b a tio n o ffic e r.” R . D o c . 4 3 , a t 3 . D i s cus s i on W ai ver s of the r i ghtt o appea l ar e gene r al l yenfor cea bl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. G or don, 480 F. 3d 1205, 1207 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . “C ons equent l y , befor e r eac hi ng the mer i t s of thi s appea l , w e mustdet erm i ne w hethers uch r evi ew i s pr ecl uded by the w ai ver . ” I d. Fi r s t , w e det erm i ne “w hetherthe di s put ed appe al fal l s w i thi n the s cope of the w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. H ahn, 359 F. 3d 1315, 1 3 2 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). If the ap p ea l do es n o t fall w ith in the sco p e o f th e w aive r, ouranal y s i s ends and w e pr ocee d t o the mer i t s . I f the appe al i s w i thi n the s cope of the w ai ver , w e mustnextdet erm i ne “w hetherthe defendantknow i ngl yand v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e d h is a p p e llate rig h ts,” a n d “ w h e th e r e n fo rc in g th e w a iv e r w o u ld- 5 -

r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce . . . . ” I d. A s w e have s t at ed fr equent l y , pl ea a gr eement s ar e governed bycontr act p ri n ciples. G o rdo n , 4 8 0 F . 3 d at 12 0 7 (cit ing U n it ed S tat es v . R o ck w ell Int’l C o rp., 1 2 4 F . 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 1 9 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 )). O ne cons equenc e i s thatany ambi gui t i es i n a pl ea a gr eementar e cons trued aga i ns tthe governm ent . I d. ( ci t i ng R estatem en t ( S ec o n d ) of C o n tr ac ts § 2 0 6 (19 8 1 ) fo r th e d o ctri n e o f c o n tr a p ro fe re n tem ). T h u s, in d e ter m in in g th e sc o p e o f M r. C o o p e r’s w a iv e r, w e w ill cons true al l ambi gui t i es i n the agr eementagai ns tthe governm entand i n favorof M r. C o o p e r. In th is c a s e , M r. C o o p e r a g re e d to a b ro a d w a iv e r o f a p p e lla te ri g h ts . E ss e n tially , M r. C o o p e r a g re e d to w a iv e tw o th in g s: (1 ) h is rig h t to c h a llen g e h is “gui l typl ea a nd anyotheras pectof hi s convi ct i on, ” and ( 2) hi s r i ghtt o chal l enge th e “ se n ten c e a s im p o se d b yth e C o u rt a n d th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e se n ten c e is d e ter m in e d .” R . D o c . 2 3 , at 5 . M r. C o o p e r d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th e fa c t o f h is gui l t , s o the fi r s tw ai veri s noti m pl i cat ed. T he s econd w ai veri s i m pl i cat ed, how ever , and the governm entar gues thatM r . C ooper ’ s chal l enge t o the re stitu tio n a w a rd fa lls w ith in th e sc o p e o f h is w a iv e r o f

th e rig h t to c h a llen g e h is

“ s e n te n c e a s im p o s e d b yth e C o u rt .” W e h a v e y e t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a g e n e ra l w a iv e r o f th e rig h t to a p p e a l a “s ent ence ” nec es s ar i l yi ncl udes a w ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l al l r es t i tut i on- 6 -

aw ar ds . A m aj or i tyof ours i s t erci r cui t s have c oncl uded thats uch l anguage does noti ncl ude a ge ner al w ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l a r es t i tut i on aw ar d. See U ni t ed St at es v. Si s trunk, 432 F. 3d 917, 918 ( 8th C i r . 2006) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sm i th, 344 F. 3d 479, 483 ( 6th C i r . 2003) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B ehrm an, 235 F. 3d 1049, 1052 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); U n it ed S tat es v . Z ink , 1 0 7 F . 3 d 7 1 6 , 7 1 7 -18 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); U ni t ed St at es v. R eady , 82 F. 3d 551, 560 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ; buts ee U ni t ed St at es v. C o h en , 4 5 9 F . 3 d 4 9 0 , 4 9 7 (4th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n thi s cas e, how ever , the pl ea a g r e e me n tma k e s c l e a rth a tth e p a r t i e s c o n s i d e r e d a r e s t i tu t i o n a wa r d fo rv i c t i ms of M r . C ooper ’ s r el at ed conduc tt o be partof hi s “s ent ence . ” The pl ea a gr eement expr es s l yand unambi guous l ys t at es : “[T] he part i es fur theragr ee that , as partof the s ent ence r es ul t i ng fr om the defendant ’ s pl ea, the C our tw i l l ent eran or derof r es t i tut i on foral l l os s es caus ed t o the vi ct i m s of the defendant ’ s r el evantconduct

. . . . ” R . D oc. 23 at2- 3 ( emphasi s added) . T he part i es agr ee thatthi s pr ovi s i on of the pl ea a gr eementform ed the bas i s of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s $135, 000 r es t i tut i on aw ar d t o M r . K uhn. A ccor di ngl y , M r . C ooper ’ s chal l enge t o the amountof r es t i tut i on aw ar ded t o M r . K uhn cl ear l yfal l s w i thi n the s cope of hi s w ai verof the rig h t to a p p e a l. S im ilarly , M r. C o o p e r’s c h a llen g e to th e c o n d iti o n o f su p e rv ise d re lea se is a lso c lea rlyp a rt o f

h is “ se n ten c e ” a n d is th u s b a rre d b yh is w a iv e r o f th e rig h t to appea l . See U ni t ed St at es v. Sandoval , 477 F. 3d 1204, 1207 ( 10th C i r . 2007) (no ti n g that a c o n d it ion o f su p erv ised release is pa rto f th e “ sen tenc e” im p o sed );- 7 -

s ee a l s o 18 U . S. C . § 3583( a) ( author i zi ng a di s tr i ctcourtt o i m pos e a t erm of su p e rv ise d re lea se “ a s a p a rt o f th e se n ten c e ” ). W h ile w e w o u ld n o rm a lly p roc ee d to d eterm ine w h ethe r M r. C o o p er’s w aive r w as k n o w ing an d v o lun tary and w hetherenfor cementof the w ai verw oul d r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce, M r. C o o p e r d o e s n o t r a is e th e s e a rg u m e n ts in h is b ri e f a n d w e d e e m th e m w a iv e d . S ee S tat e F arm F ir e & C as. C o . v . M h o o n , 3 1 F . 3 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 4 n . 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). N ev erthe less, M r. C o o p er a rgu es th at his ch all en g e to th e re sti tuti o n aw ard s houl d s ur vi ve the w ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l beca us e i tcons t i tut es a cha l l enge t o the l egal i tyof the r es t i tut i on aw ar d. See G or don, 480 F. 3d at1210. T he e x c e p tio n c re a ted b yG o rd o n h o w e v e r, is e x tre m e lyn a rro w a n d a p p lies o n lyin th e c a se w h e re th e re is n o fa c tu a l d isp u te a s to th e a m o u n t o f re stitu tio n lin k e d to an o ffen se a n d the leg ali tyo f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s resti tuti o n aw ard ca n there fo re be r evi ew ed s ol el yas a ques t i on of l aw . I d. at1209 n. 4. I n thi s cas e, M r . C ooper r ai s es a fa ctual chal l enge t o the r es t i tut i on aw ar d, ar gui ng thatthe governm ent fa il ed to p rod u ce su ffici en t evid en ce to p rov e tha t M r. K u h n w as a v ict im o f M r. C ooper ’ s r el at ed conduc tbeca us e M r . K uhn pos s es s ed a four th- i n- l i ne mort gage o n M r. C o o p e r’ s h o u s e f ro m w h ic h h e m ig h t r e c o v e r s o m e o f h is lo s s e s . S e e A p lt. B r. at 9 -1 0 . In d e e d , M r. C o o p e r’s o w n a p p e llate b rie f c h a ra c ter ize s h is chal l enge a s fac tual i n natur e: “[M r . C ooper ] pr es ent ed a t i m el ychal l enge t o the inclu sion o f [ M r. K u h n ] w h o claim ed losse s ass o ciated w ith h is co n d u ct. M r. C oopers t at ed a factual bas i s forhi s chal l enge. T he U ni t ed St at es di d notr ebut- 8 -

the fa ctual as s ert i on pr es ent ed . . . and di d notpr es entaddi t i onal evi dence forthe s ent enci ng court ’ s cons i der at i on. ” A pl t . B r . at10 ( emphasi s added) . A chal l enge to th e a m o u n t o f

a re stitu tio n a w a rd b a se d o n su fficie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e is nece s s ar i l ybas ed on di s put ed fa ct s and thus does notfal l w i thi n the G or don e x c e p tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , itis c lea rlyb a rre d b ya g e n e ra l w a iv e r o f th e rig h t to a p p e a l a re s titu tio n a w a rd . DI S M I S S E D.