United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-20371

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Kenneth Anim, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-321-1 

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Haynes, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Kenneth Anim pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement 

containing an appeal waiver, to operating an unlicensed money transmitting 

business, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960. He challenges the restitution 

order, totaling $2,233,265.25, as improperly calculated and in excess of the 

statutory maximum. 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 24, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-20371 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2024
No. 23-20371

2

The Government seeks to enforce Anim’s appeal waiver. He 

contends the waiver is not enforceable because the restitution order exceeded 

the statutory maximum. Although the at-issue waiver contained no 

exceptions, “an otherwise valid appeal waiver is not enforceable to bar a 

defendant’s challenge on appeal that his sentence, including the amount of a 

restitution order, exceeds the statutory maximum, notwithstanding the lack 

of an express reservation to bring such a challenge”. United States v. Kim, 

988 F.3d 803, 811 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, Anim’s “challenge to the 

legality of his restitution order is not barred, and we can consider the merits 

of his argument”. Id.

On the other hand, because Anim did not object to the restitution 

order in district court, review is only for plain error (as he concedes). E.g.,

United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that 

standard, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather 

than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, 

we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally 

should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted). 

Anim first contends the court plainly erred by failing to undertake the

proximate-cause analysis outlined in Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 

(2014). But, as he recognizes, Paroline addressed how to calculate and 

apportion restitution for victims of various offenses related to child 

pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2259. See Paroline, 572 U.S. at 439, 443–48

(construing statute); United States v. Sheets, 814 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 2016) 

(“Paroline solely involve[d] . . . whether restitution may be imposed under 

the circumstances of that case”.). He contends Paroline’s reasoning can be 

extended to his restitution order under a different statutory provision. 

Because “an error is not plain if it requires the extension of precedent”, 

Case: 23-20371 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2024
No. 23-20371

3

however, Anim does not show the requisite clear-or-obvious error. United 

States v. Vargas-Soto, 700 F.3d 180, 182 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Next, Anim contends the court erred by holding him responsible for 

the victims’ losses despite his limited role in the conspiracy and lack of assets. 

As discussed supra, review is again only for plain error. 

The court ordered the restitution under the Mandatory Victims 

Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii), and Anim does not 

contend that decision was erroneous. “[T]he MVRA imposes joint liability 

on all defendants for loss caused by others participating in the scheme.” 

United States v. King, 93 F.4th 845, 854 (5th Cir. 2024) (alteration in original) 

(citation omitted), petition for cert. docketed sub nom. Diggs v. United States

(U.S. 30 May 2024) (No. 23-7592). The court is required to “order 

restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim’s losses . . . 

without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant”. 18 

U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). Although a court “may apportion liability among the 

defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim’s loss and 

economic circumstances of each defendant”, Anim does not show the court 

plainly erred by failing to do so. Id. § 3664(h) (emphasis added); see also 

United States v. Havens, 597 F. App’x 785, 787 (5th Cir. 2015) (rejecting 

similar contention). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-20371 Document: 71-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/24/2024